And I thought I was the only one who knew about smoke screens, pathetic.
What does hypocrisy have to do with this now?
*sighs loudly*

Chrisbenogor:

And I thought I was the only one who knew about smoke screens, pathetic.
What does hypocrisy have to do with this now?
*sighs loudly*

i'm 150% sure you have not followed this thread logically AT ALL. Rather all you have done is simply jump on the secularists bandwagon.

This is all i have asked on the secularists here: how has christianity negatively affected society?

Its that simple . . . all these hogwash about smokescreens, pathetic, hypocrisy just makes my eyes bleed. Simple questions demand simple, logical answers. Its not too difficult to expect the same of you when you pepper us daily with threads with substanceless questions.

Why is Bastage in a rage? Huxley posted this thread and disappeared with his tail between his legs soon as he realised he couldnt answer the very same questions he claimed to be posing. Mantraa tried to pull the wool over our eyes and fled soon as his ranting turned out to be nothing but empty rants.

What's with the constant recourse to millitancy, insults and outrage from this secularist movement?

For people who claim that religion is dangerous . . . i think i have a lot more to fear in a society that is increasingly populated by secular intolerance.

Secular humanism is humanist philosophy coined in the 20th century . . . your own wikipedia page.

Secular humanism is just an updated version of humanism. The code is identical. The word secular was only added to distinguish it from regular humanism which although identical, has room for a belief in a god. Even though that belief should have no impact on the conduct of the humanist.
Humanism has been around for millenia. Longer than both Christianity and Islam.

It's hardly some new-age philosophy as you are insinuating. But then if you had bothered to read both links properly, you would have known that.

Since when did philosophy become a moral code?

That is just another utterly ridiculous question that isn't worth an answer. Are you really that stupid?


As for being in a rage, David? No. I guess you could say that your ignorance exasperates me. But no. Not in a rage.

This is all i have asked on the secularists here: how has christianity negatively affected society?

And you have been told time and time again that it is an irrelevant question. Would you like to explain to me why it is relevant?

Yet another smoke screen david, I asked what hypocrisy had to do with this?

Yet another smoke screen david, I asked what hypocrisy had to do with this?

Bastage:

And you have been told time and time again that it is an irrelevant question. Would you like to explain to me why it is relevant?

Why is it "irrelevant"? That there is the problem . . .

If secularism is at war with religion it is fair to ask WHY.

I've already told you why. Let me repeat myself yet again.
Because they have no other options. No other choices. Ethics and morals have been shaped by religion. They're saying that they would like a choice in the matter and be able to decide for themselves. They're saying that any moral or ethical decisions based on religion that affect them are an insult to their rights as human beings.

They're not saying they want to destroy religion. They're saying "Believe what you want. But keep those beliefs to yourself and don't force them down my throat or use them in a way that affects my life". They're saying "Why should your belief in a god affect the way that I live?".

Bastage:

I've already told you why. Let me repeat myself yet again.
Because they have no other options. No other choices. Ethics and morals have been shaped by religion. They're saying that they would like a choice in the matter and be able to decide for themselves. They're saying that any moral or ethical decisions based on religion that affect them are an insult to their rights as human beings.

They're not saying they want to destroy religion. They're saying "Believe what you want. But keep those beliefs to yourself and don't force them down my throat or use them in a way that affects my life".

Fair enough . . . but here comes my other question . . . in what way is religion FORCING itself down the throat of the secularist movement?

If ethics and morals have been shaped by religion, how does the secularist hope to change this? What will be different in societal ethics if we take away religion? Have other areligious nations like communist Russia been better models of ethics and morals?

George Bush senior once decleard that atheist should not be considered as Americans(not the right quote but something very similar to that). He was president at that time.

Fair enough . . . but here comes my other question . . . in what way is religion FORCING itself down the throat of the secularist movement?

Religion has always been forced down our throats. As I've yet again already stated - we live it, we breathe it, we eat it, we sleep it. It has shaped the human race and therefore each individual wether he wanted it to or not.

If ethics and morals have been shaped by religion, how does the secularist hope to change this?

Read John Lennon's Imagine again. Personally, I am not a believer in humanism. I see it as unworkable due to the fact that religion has got under our skin so deep, we'll never be able to get it out again. I see humanists more as romantic dreamers. That said, I believe that they have a very important voice and are a counterbalance against fundamentalism.

What will be different in societal ethics if we take away religion?

Nobody knows. Mankind has never known anything different. Humanists obviously think it will be a better world. I don't necessarily think it will. They put way too much faith in their fellow man knowing when to do the right thing for my liking.

Have other areligious nations like communist Russia been better models of ethics and morals?

There has never been an areligious nation on this planet. Four decades of Communistic administrative atheism wouldn't make even the slightest dent in the thousands and thousands of years of religious influence that came before (part of the reason why I don't believe humanism can ever work). Sure, you can close the churches and imprison the bishops, but you can never stop the people from believing.
There hasn't been a place on Earth that hasn't been influenced. Therefore there's no better or worse. There's nothing to compare it with.

Bastage:

Religion has always been forced down our throats. As I've yet again already stated - we live it, we breathe it, we eat it, we sleep it. It has shaped the human race and therefore each individual wether he wanted it to or not.

If indeed this were true as i can tell you it certainly isnt . . . how has this been a net negative?

Bastage:

Read John Lennon's Imagine again. Personally, I am not a believer in humanism. I see it as unworkable due to the fact that religion has got under our skin so deep, we'll never be able to get it out again. I see humanists more as romantic dreamers. That said, I believe that they have a very important voice and are a counterbalance against fundamentalism.

I already gave my take on it. Its filled with lies, halftruths and false utopia. Here is an example -

And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

Pol Pot, Hitler, Joseph Stalin . . . certainly very peaceful people . . . it was all the fault of religion.

Bastage:

Nobody knows. Mankind has never known anything different. Humanists obviously think it will be a better world. I don't necessarily think it will. They put way too much faith in their fellow man knowing when to do the right thing for my liking.

Two contradictory statements here . . . if mankind has never known anything different how then do humanists automatically assume a world without religion would be better? Is communist Russia or Nazi Germany any better than the UK?

The truth is secularists compare athiesm with the fanatical fringe of religions and then assume they speak for all religionists. As much as religion, secularism also has a fanatical fringe. the world wont be an alice in wonderland fairy tale without religion.

Bastage:

There hasn't been a place on Earth that hasn't been influenced. Therefore there's no better or worse. There's nothing to compare it with.

then why do secularists tell us without religion the would would be a better place?

If indeed this were true as i can tell you it certainly isnt . . . how has this been a net negative?

They look at history. The wars, the persecutions. Wether or not it would have been any different, I personally don't believe so. But they believe that it would have been different. They believe that man would have been an entirely different kind of animal and a better one at that.

Pol Pot, Hitler, Joseph Stalin . . . certainly very peaceful people . . . it was all the fault of religion.

Hitler believed in god. He wasn't an atheist. But an atheist could throw back Iraq, Afghanistan and countless other regimes and wars in your face so it's not really safe ground. Then you're into another difficulty with the other two - they were so affected by religion, they tried to eradicate it and created misery in doing so. If their societies were secular before they took over, would they have felt the need to do so? It cuts both ways. I don't say that as a condemnation of religion - merely pointing out the fact that even though Stalin was an atheist and Pol Pot probably was, religious influence was still a factor. They rebelled. Don't get them confused with humanists though. Humanism and Communism are incompatible even though Communism likes to claim that it is a bedfellow.

Two contradictory statements here . . . if mankind has never known anything different how then do humanists automatically assume a world without religion would be better?

No. Not contradictory.
Some of them are what I would call fundamentalists and base their ideal on the fact that they were never given a choice. They see themselves as slaves to religion. They simply want a right to choose. In my opinion, that group haven't thought through the consequences of total secularisation and only see the positives that they want to and ignore the point that there could be negatives. Others look at the humanist code and see it as a more workable path for mankind to go down. Personally, I see the code as a pipe-dream - mankind is simply not advanced enough to follow it. They would argue that we should at least try.

Is communist Russia or Nazi Germany any better than the UK?

You can't make that comparison. As I've already pointed out, religion was still an influence. But if you insist, was Russia better than Spain during the Inquisition? See? Comparisons aren't relevant.

he truth is secularists compare athiesm with the fanatical fringe of religions and then assume they speak for all religionists.

Some do. There's no denying that. But I would suggest that the majority simply want to live their lives free from religious influence.

the world wont be an alice in wonderland fairy tale without religion.

Who knows? But I think for the vast majority of secularists, fundamentalism is the biggest worry. And a world ruled by fundamentalism would be a hell of a lot worse than what we've got now. We know that in the West just by looking at history.

then why do secularists tell us without religion the would would be a better place?

As I've stated above - some think that a secular society would be a freer one and change the outlook of humanity. Some think it would be a better place simply because they believe they would have the right to choose their own destiny.

Bastage:

Some do. There's no denying that. But I would suggest that the majority simply want to live their lives free from religious influence.

That is why i continue to ask the question . . . how does religion negatively influence the daily life of an American athiest for example? I've lived here for 3 yrs and even as a christian myself i can tell you there is ample opportunity to live without coming in contact with christian influence at all.

Bastage:

Who knows? But I think for the vast majority of secularists, fundamentalism is the biggest worry. And a world ruled by fundamentalism would be a hell of a lot worse than what we've got now. We know that in the West just by looking at history.

That is why i believe secularists are being hypocritical. If fundamentalism is a worry then why is AC Grayling complaining? Its not like the church of England is going to impose religion on the UK any time soon. Infact if secularists shld be worried it shld be about Islam but funny enough they all seem to be silent on that issue. Why is the emphasis on christianity? Where are the christian fundamentalists?

Is AC Grayling going to address the growing secular fundamentalist movement as witnessed recently by the violence with which the gay rights movement greeted the passing of Prop 8?

Bastage:

As I've stated above - some think that a secular society would be a freer one and change the outlook of humanity. Some think it would be a better place simply because they believe they would have the right to choose their own destiny.

If they have absolutely nothing to compare with . . . how do they know this for certain?
That is why i mention Russia . . . forget about yrs of supposed christian influence . . . was it the christian influence that produced Joseph Stalin or the likes of Pol Pot?

That is why i continue to ask the question . . . how does religion negatively influence the daily life of an American athiest for example?

Because they see themselves as slaves to it. Is that not a big enough negative?

If fundamentalism is a worry then why is AC Grayling complaining? Its not like the church of England is going to impose religion on the UK any time soon.

They see fundamentalism as growing. Look to the States and the Bible Belt and the proposed election of Palin. After years of liberalization, they see religion making more of an impact on politics and their lives. But also, like I said, they want the freedom to choose.

Infact if secularists shld be worried it shld be about Islam but funny enough they all seem to be silent on that issue. Why is the emphasis on christianity? Where are the christian fundamentalists?

They are worried about Islamic fundamentalism but because they live in a Christian society, it's not their major cause of concern. But there is a major worry that Islamic fundamentalism will cause a surge in Christian fundamentalism in opposition. As for where are the Christian fundamentalists? I only have to point to people like Palin and even Bush who let their religion guide their politics and dictate the lives of the people in their country. You may say that she's a Yank and therefore irrelevant but there's a long history of the US sneezing and the rest of the West catching a cold. But you can also look at Blair who openly stated that his belief in his god was a factor within his political decisions. It led to his Press Officer, Alistair Campbell, saying "We don't do god", when questioned.

Is AC Grayling going to address the growing secular fundamentalist movement as witnessed recently by the violence with which the gay rights movement greeted the passing of Prop 8?

As far as I know, there hasn't been an incident of violence by atheists. There have been incidents in the UK by people on the other side though. The  unrest over "Jerry Springer the Opera" comes immediately to mind.

If they have absolutely nothing to compare with . . . how do they know this for certain?

There is no knowing for certain. Just like our belief in a god is not "knowing for certain". But they tend to base their belief on what they see as realism and a more material sense, whereas you and I base it on a more spiritual sense. To some degree that gives them even more justification. It is much, much more difficult to debate a secularist or atheist than a believer in god. They start from a position that is logically sound whereas my starting point is based on belief. It's only after going a lot deeper into the subject that I can use logic against them.

was it the christian influence that produced Joseph Stalin or the likes of Pol Pot?

Christian influence would have produced Stalin. I believe it was Buddhism that created Pol Pot. It would have been their views of negativity about that influence that helped to shape their policies.

Bastage:

Because they see themselves as slaves to it. Is that not a big enough negative?

This certainly exists only in their minds to be honest. How are you slaves to a christianity? In what way does a religion regulate the lives of people ina society where gay marriage is becoming the norm, it is now forbidden to say "merry christmas" and christianity is becoming an endangered specie?

Bastage:

They see fundamentalism as growing. Look to the States and the Bible Belt and the proposed election of Palin. After years of liberalization, they see religion making more of an impact on politics and their lives. But also, like I said, they want the freedom to choose.

The Palin issue is a desperate grasping at straws. The Palin pick was roundly condemned both by the media and at the polls. Of course she only appeals to a fringe group of conservatives who would NEVER have voted for a black man anyway.

How is religion making more of an impact in their politics? If Obama were white, Palin would be no more than a footnote in history.

Secularists ALREADY have the freedom of choice.

Bastage:

They are worried about Islamic fundamentalism but because they live in a Christian society, it's not their major cause of concern.

9-11 is a mere 7 yrs away and America is embroiled in two bitter wars of religious ideology and christianity not islam is their major concern? What hypocrisy.

Bastage:

But there is a major worry that Islamic fundamentalism will cause a surge in Christian fundamentalism in opposition.

This is NOT true. So because muslims are blowing up the WTC christians would be motivated to go get bombs too?

Bastage:

As for where are the Christian fundamentalists? I only have to point to people like Palin and even Bush who let their religion guide their politics and dictate the lives of the people in their country. You may say that she's a Yank and therefore irrelevant but there's a long history of the US sneezing and the rest of the West catching a cold. But you can also look at Blair who openly stated that his belief in his god was a factor within his political decisions. It led to his Press Officer, Alistair Campbell, saying "We don't do god", when questioned.

This beggars belief really Bastage!

What is Bush's approval rating? how many people voted for Palin? Sheesh!

I ask for christian fundamentalists and you produce Palin?

Bastage:

As far as I know, there hasn't been an incident of violence by atheists. There have been incidents in the UK by people on the other side though. The unrest over "Jerry Springer the Opera" comes immediately to mind.

The violence over prop 8 is a very fresh reminder that the secular left is hell-bent on forcing its opinion down our throats. The mormon church has already felt their wrath first hand . . . this in the same country where mormons are hounded and jailed for polygamy.

The hypocrisy is mind boggling.

Bastage:

Christian influence would have produced Stalin. I believe it was Buddhism that created Pol Pot. It would have been their views of negativity about that influence that helped to shape their policies.

Urgh! Please enough with revisionist history and baseless allegations.

This certainly exists only in their minds to be honest. How are you slaves to a christianity? In what way does a religion regulate the lives of people ina society where gay marriage is becoming the norm, it is now forbidden to say "merry christmas" and christianity is becoming an endangered specie?

They would say that gay marriage shouldn't even be an issue, let alone the norm. Personally, I don't agree with that.
As for not saying "Merry Christmas". Any rule like that is bought in precisely because of some idiot who doesn't want to offend other religious beliefs. It's just one religion playing off another and they see themselves as caught in the middle.

The Palin issue is a desperate grasping at straws. The Palin pick was roundly condemned both by the media and at the polls. Of course she only appeals to a fringe group of conservatives who would NEVER have voted for a black man anyway.

You don't find it an issue to this subject that a woman with her fundamentalist outlook was in a postion where she was up for the second most powerful position in the most powerful country in the world?

Secularists ALREADY have the freedom of choice.

They would argue that they don't. And as I've already pointed out - they have a very strong case.

What is Bush's approval rating? how many people voted for Palin? Sheesh!

Bush still got voted in twice. As for Palin, I would say that a few million voted for the Reps purely because of her religious beliefs. That's why she was put there.

9-11 is a mere 7 years away and America is embroiled in two bitter wars of religious ideology and christianity not islam is their major concern? What hypocrisy.

As you point out, we fight the Islamic fundamentalists with guns. Secularists like Grayling fight the Christian fundamentalists with words.

This is NOT true. So because muslims are blowing up the WTC christians would be motivated to go get bombs too?

Nobody is saying that Christians are going to run around bombing. But what it does create is more fundamentalism. It's a fact. When people attack your beliefs (as they believe Islamic fundamentalists do) they only tend to harden them. That cuts both ways too.

The violence over prop 8 is a very fresh reminder that the secular left is hell-bent on forcing its opinion down our throats.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with secularism. If it did, why would they worry about getting married?

Please enough with revisionist history and baseless allegations.

I've explained how people are influenced by religion from birth already. Most of Stalin's schoolmates were the sons of priests. He even trained to become a priest himself before becoming an atheist. How could that not affect him?

Bastage:

You don't find it an issue to this subject that a woman with her fundamentalist outlook was in a postion where she was up for the second most powerful position in the most powerful country in the world?

Why shld i find it an issue? So because she has strongly held religious beliefs automatically disqualify her from holding public office? Was she going to rule as VP using the bible? There is a constitution that strongly separates church and state and there is a supreme court that is there to uphold the law. this is grasping at straws really.

Bastage:

They would argue that they don't. And as I've already pointed out - they have a very strong case.

Besides the flippant use of the nebulous term "everything", you havent "pointed out" any reason why secularists would claim they have no freedom in the US or UK.

Bastage:

Bush still got voted in twice. As for Palin, I would say that a few million voted for the Reps purely because of her religious beliefs. That's why she was put there.

Bush didnt win the first election (infact he lost the popular vote) because of religion . . . he won on a technicality decided by justices of the supreme court.
He won re-election the second time thanks to 9-11 and a John Kerry who shot himself in the foot with comments about Vietnam war vets.

Palin was voted for by some (thankfully very few) purely because of religious beliefs. Like i said earlier . . . religious people ALSO HAVE A RIGHT TO CAST THEIR VOTES BASED ON WHATEVER REASONS. Liberals and secularists had their way and voted for a smoking president . . . uhm the religious right are not throwing a fit are they?

Bastage:

As you point out, we fight the Islamic fundamentalists with guns. Secularists like Grayling fight the Christian fundamentalists with words.

Why is AC Grayling fighting christian fundamentalism? And where exactly are these "fundamentalists"?

Bastage:

Nobody is saying that Christians are going to run around bombing. But what it does create is more fundamentalism. It's a fact. When people attack your beliefs (as they believe Islamic fundamentalists do) they only tend to harden them. That cuts both ways too.

This is bogus. Where are the christian fundamentalists?

Bastage:

I've explained how people are influenced by religion from birth already. Most of Stalin's schoolmates were the sons of priests. How could that not affect him?

what else? his landlord was buddhist so that influenced him too? I've never heard such argument in my life.

I lived for 19yrs with muslim landlord and neighbours . . . how did that not influence me?

And he keeps slandering the word hypocrisy.

So far I've answered every one of your questions and rebutted every one of your points. Like I said - it's getting boring. Especially when I have to keep repeating myself and especially when you keep bringing up redundant or irrelevant points as you have in your last post.

So I'll ask you a question.

How do secularists harm you?

Bastage:

So far I've answered every one of your questions and rebutted every one of your points. Like I said - it's getting boring. Especially when I have to keep repeating myself and especially when you keep bringing up redundant or irrelevant points as you have in your last post.

So I'll ask you a question.

How do secularists harm you?

I never said they did, no christian has come up with ranting headlines on "christians vital war on secularism" . . . so how can i answer a question that has no meaning to me. I live a full life that is not affected by secularists.

Secularists are the ones making the claim that religion harms them. I've only asked them to show me just how . . . where are the reasons?

No you didnt rebutt any points because i rebutted them right back as very few of them make logical sense.

Palin as a christian fundamentalist? Abeg no let me split my ribs please.

this is the simple question i've been asking since page 1:

[size=14pt]Why is AC Grayling fighting christian fundamentalism? And where exactly are these "fundamentalists"?[/size]

No answers as yet . . .

I never said they did, no christian has come up with ranting headlines on "christians vital war on secularism" . . . so how can i answer a question that has no meaning to me. I live a full life that is not affected by secularists.

I'd like to point you to the first post you made in this thread.

don't these secularists like AC Grayling make you want to laugh them to derision?  

when it comes to christianity . . . they are at war with religion.
When its islam they kow tow to the violent mullahs and tell us to "respect" their religion.

bunch of hypocrites.

I'd say they affect you enough for you to make a pretty vitriolic post. Surely that didn't come from nowhere. Otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to answer as you have.

No you didnt rebutt any points because i rebutted them right back as very few of them make logical sense.

Nope. For example you rebutt the fact that Christianity was an influence in Stalin's life with nothing but a denial. I've even told you how he trained for the priesthood yet you completely overlook the logic in my argument. In fact, most of what you've rebutted is just denial. Denial either not explained or peppered with irrelevancy.

See this example below for an illustration of the point above:

Palin as a christian fundamentalist? Abeg no let me split my ribs please.

Palin is a Creationist. For you to suggest that she's not a fundamentalist is laughable. I take it your ribs are splitting from laughing at your own stupidity?

fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅ism
   /ˌfʌndəˈmɛntlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

How does she not fit the dictionary definition of a fundamentalist?

Why is AC Grayling fighting christian fundamentalism? And where exactly are these "fundamentalists"?

Fundamentalists are the cancer of ignorance within Christianity. I'd say you're doing a pretty good impression of a fundamentalist yourself, David.

@davidlan,

   You are a fraudulent and deluded scientist.

How can you say a man with a physical body (with his boned intact) will come floating through gravitational forces (gforce) that will crush a human or anybody to the size of an A4 paper sheet.

You cannot reason sound enough to delude yourself you are a scientist.

So if Jesus comes floating on the cloud in USA in the afternoon, will the people in New Zealand see him considering the varying time zone, what about the people in England will they also see him?
Or how many ressurrection will there be?

Scientist are people are people who answer questions based on facts and sound reasoning, not be[b]lie[/b]fs or be[b]lie[/b]ves. You would't know anything about that.

Science says you are psychologically impaired because you disregard evidence you can see, and things you cannot see or prove you say are real, just because you want it to be real.

In medicine, psychology, this is viewed or regarded as a disease of the mind commonly known as psychologically impairment and psychopathology (Behaviour of Mentally or psychologically impaired people).

So if Jesus comes floating on the cloud in USA in the afternoon, will the people in New Zealand see him considering the varying (different) time zones, what about the people in England will they also see him?

Bastage:

I'd say they affect you enough for you to make a pretty vitriolic post. Surely that didn't come from nowhere. Otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to answer as you have.

the post was in no way vitriolic, it was simply a potent reminder of the hypocrisy that the secularist movement embodies.

Bastage:

Nope. For example you rebutt the fact that Christianity was an influence in Stalin's life with nothing but a denial. I've even told you how he trained for the priesthood yet you completely overlook the logic in my argument. In fact, most of what you've rebutted is just denial. Denial either not explained or peppered with irrelevancy.

You also make the baseless claim that christianity influenced Stalin's life with the laughable idea that he became the terror he was because he once trained for the priesthood. Thousands of folks train for the priesthood yrly . . . how many of them turn out to be mass-murdering despots?

Was Pol Pot also influenced by the priesthood?

I dont overlook logic . . . i simply re-explain it so you see the illogicality in your own position.

Bastage:

Palin is a Creationist. For you to suggest that she's not a fundamentalist is laughable.

Another silly and baseless over-generalization.

Creationist = fundamentalist?

Every christian believes in the creation . . . are we now all fundamentalists? What stupidity.

Bastage:

fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅ism
   /ˌfʌndəˈmɛntlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

How does she not fit the dictionary definition of a fundamentalist?

Based on this, every christian is a fundamentalist.

Secularists are also fundamentalists . . .

what's next? 7 yr olds who strongly believe the bible are also fundamentalists?

These people make you laugh to be honest.

Every christian believes in the creation . . . are we now all fundamentalists?

The majority of Christians in the UK do not believe in Creationism - less than a fifth of them are convinced by the argument. Creationism is a minority viewpoint that has only very recently gained any strength. In the US, on the other hand, there is a large proportion that do. They throw Darwin in the trash and believe in some crackpot myth handed down by the Babylonian Enuma Elish. The frightening fact is that Creationism is a growing trend in the UK. Incidentally, that pisses all over your statement that Christian fundamentalism is not growing.

You don't even know anything about your own fellow worshippers. How are you fit to judge secularists?

You also make the baseless claim that christianity influenced Stalin's life with the laughable idea that he became the terror he was because he once trained for the priesthood. Thousands of folks train for the priesthood yrly

Yeah. Thousands of them train yearly and quite a few of them move onto fucking kids up the ass. To claim that Christianity was no influence on Stalin when he trained to be a priest is laughable. Logic would tell anyone but the most short-sighted buffoon that he would have formed an opinion of something he was actively involved in. You're a joke, David. You're in denial of reality.

Based on this, every christian is a fundamentalist.

Utter crap. Most Christians do not believe that the Bible is infallible. Figures state that 25% of UK Christians don't even believe in the Nativity!!! Studies show that the majority of Christians in the UK recognise that the Bible contains instances of irreconcilable dogma. Only illogical idiots like you hold that ignorant view above and claim otherwise.

the post was in no way vitriolic, it was simply a potent reminder of the hypocrisy that the secularist movement embodies.

When the secularist movement rallies against the sort of blind ignorance you've shown in this thread, I know who's side I'm on. And it ain't yours.

I'm done with you. I can only talk to a retard for so long before my tolerance level is over-stretched.

Same old substanceless drivel.

Then throw in the insults when their intellectual "dhimmitude" is exposed.

Stalin was a crackpot because he trained as a priest! What a shameless non-comment.

What of Pol Pot and Hitler? What did they train as?

@Davidlan

You are full of believe, but no facts.

These nutjobs never cease to amaze me. So Christianity is to blame for the atrocities of their ideological soulmates like Mao Zedong and Stalin.

What I cant understand is that we heard them the first time they said they didnt believe.

Why in Gods name they need to tell us 47309384092384209 times is beyond me and really stupid and pathetic. Get over yourselves please

4 Play:

These nutjobs never cease to amaze me. So Christianity is to blame for the atrocities of their ideological soulmates like Mao Zedong and Stalin.

Bastage says Stalin's period of training as a priest is to blame. Pinhead.