David F,
Thanks for the clarification. Then you ascribe to a notion that right and wrong are absolute and not contingent on 'public opinion'? How would an atheist support this position?
salaams

Dear grateful,

I do not subscribe to the position that right and wrong are absolute. It is an unreasonable inference to assume that because I do not recognise right and wrong as determined by public opinion then I must accept that it is absolute. We decide in our conscience what is right and wrong. This may differ from what somebody else in their conscience thinks is right and wrong.

You wrote: "A fundamentalist atheist would be one who says, quite rightly, "the burden of proof for the existance of God is on those who make the claim". However their non-negotiable position would be: "There is no evidence""

The burden of proof is on anyone who makes an assertion. That is the basis for legal proceedings. Anyone making an assertion must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a reasonable position to demand evidence. It is not fundamentalism.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

David f & grateful

I put it to you both that the existence, or non-existence, of God is UNDECIDABLE. There is no way of knowing whether there exists some entity that could be described as the "creator of the universe."

Personally I doubt such an entity exists but I cannot disprove the entity's existence.

I also put it to you both that for the purpose of every day life the question is UNIMPORTANT. It is of NO CONSEQUENCE. It is an IRRELEVANT QUESTION.

The REAL issue that taxes us all is the CLAIMS various religions make about the nature of that entity and what that entity WANTS FROM US assuming it exists.

Here is my challenge to you grateful, and to any other representative of any religion.

Let us assume for the sake of argument ONLY that the universe has a creator.

Prove that YOUR understanding of what the creator of the universe wants is the correct one.

Grateful, in the case of Islam that means proving that the creator of the universe transmitted the koran VERBATIM to an actual person called Muhammad via an angel called Gibril over a 22 years period. It means explaining, inter alia, how the creator got some basic facts about mammalian reproduction and geology wrong.

It seems to me we CANNOT know that we are the purpose of creation. We may be a by product of creation. The real purpose of creation, if any, may exist beyond our event horizon.

The reality is that the creator may be as indifferent to us as we are indifferent to the doings of bacteria that inhabit some other planet orbiting some other sun.

So, how do you know that YOUR religion is the correct one?

How do you know that the creator of the universe, assuming such exists, gives a rodent's rectum about us?

Why do you think WE occupy some special position in this creation?

Aren't you all making completely unwarranted assumptions about the importance of a Johnny come lately species that probably will die out when our sun turns into a red giant?

<<I do not subscribe to the position that right and wrong are absolute. It is an unreasonable inference to assume that because I do not recognise right and wrong as determined by public opinion then I must accept that it is absolute. We decide in our conscience what is right and wrong. This may differ from what somebody else in their conscience thinks is right and wrong.>>

When you say WE "decide in our conscience what is right and wrong" do you have an explanation for this process? In the Qur'an we are told that our soul is inspired by Allah as to what is wrong and right:

<<By the sun and his brightness, (1) And the moon when she followeth him, (2) And the day when it revealeth him, (3) And the night when it enshroudeth him, (4) And the heaven and Him Who built it, (5) And the earth and Him Who spread it, (6) And a soul and Him Who perfected it (7) And inspired it (with conscience of) what is wrong for it and (what is) right for it. (8) He is indeed successful who causeth it to grow, (9) And he is indeed a failure who stunteth it. (10) >>
(Chap 91: http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/)

David you go on to say:

<<The burden of proof is on anyone who makes an assertion. That is the basis for legal proceedings. Anyone making an assertion must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a reasonable position to demand evidence. It is not fundamentalism.>>

I have always ascribed to the criteria of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". My point was that there are atheists who are fundamentalist not because they demand proof but because they say "There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God" as a premise rather than the outcome of a serious investigation.

cont..

cont..2/3
David do you know of an explanation for the Qur'an other than it being Divine revelation?

Have you read the Qur’an?

The above quote is considered by Muslims to be the words of God (or more accurately they are a rendering of the original Arabic, the language in which the Qur’aan was supposedly revealed). How would a Muslim support this case?

At the very least a Muslim would have to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that

1. The Qur’aan we have today is what was claimed as revelation over 1400 years ago

2. That the Muhammad was honest and reliable, for it was he who claimed it was revelation from God

3. That there is nothing in what the Qur’aan says that is a clear falsehood (e.g the world was created 5000 years ago, the sun revolves around the earth)

On the other hand for you they are the words of man.

You may want to argue that there is reason that this COULD NOT be the words of God. Or you would want to provide authorative evidence that Muhammad was unreliable or dishonest.

Or you may even want to argue that it has been corrupted. There is a verse in the Qur’aan which clearly predicts (and is interpreted by all scholars as saying) that the Qur’aan will not be corrupted:

"Verily, we have sent down the Reminder, and, verily, we will guard it." Q15:9

Anyone who has played the kids game Chinese Whispers, will know how easily information gets distorted when passed on by word-of-mouth.

So you would just need to find a serious scholar in Islamic studies who would argue that the Qur’aan has been corrupted or at least argue that no authority is prepared to support this claim.

cont...

cont..3/3
We obviously have a lot of common ground

<<Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams>>

I invite you to read the above verse (one set of facts), or any other, then listen to their recitation (another fact) (for both you can go to : http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/).

Then ask yourself: Who has come up with a satisfactory explanation of this phenomenon?