Fundamentalists believe that the vast majority of humanity will be tormented forever (many, probably most, of them are Calvinists, and believe that God created them specifically for that purpose), and are largely untroubled by it. And they’re fine with it; they’re perfectly happy to abandon billions of their human siblings for all of eternity, so that they can have the ontological security blanket for a few brief decades. I see that as evil. In fact, I’d be hard-pressed to define it as anything else.

But looking closely at the practices of various fundamentalists, they’re not really following their original faiths either. Near as I can tell, the difference between moderates and fundamentalists is which parts of scripture they choose to cherry-pick and how they read them. Moderates focus on the “love thy neighbour” part and ignore the fire and brimstone, while fundies latch on to the handful of vague passages condemning homosexuality and the…non-existant passages condemning abortion. Meanwhile, many of their filthy rich preachers ignore the 200+ passages condemning the filthy rich.

Christian fundies love to quote Leviticus, but how often do they quote from Obadiah or Haggai? Aren’t those part of the Complete Word of God(tm)? Why are they held in such less esteem by the fundies, or by Christians in general? Why are those books in the Bible if they’re not consulted regularly? This is where certain evangelicals get drawn into uncomfortable questions about early Christianity and the fact their faith splintered from the hated Catholicism, which they usually avoid with a spurious disregard for historical fact.

Fundamentalist Muslims? Are they really embracing the way the faith used to be? Back during the Golden Age of the umma when Islam strode across half the world, and Muslim scholars invented algebra in a cosmopolitan and relatively tolerant society?

And Jewish Orthodoxy is based on how many of the 613(?) Laws you uphold, but no one can uphold them all, given that about a quarter of them require use of the Temple, which was destroyed (for the second time) 2000 years ago and never rebuilt. (Someone once told me the fact that the whole Law could not be followed was the point–that man can never be as perfect as God. That sounds kind of evasive to me.)

I feel the notion that fundamentalists are “more correct” in their faith smacks of a No True Scotsman argument.

Why the hell are you arguing creation at all? That isn’t the topic being discussed, and it’s a pathetic attempt at derailing the thread into your christian nutjobbery whackaloon up-is-down nonsense.

Can the way a person views the world, magically, or scientifically, affect their other critical thinking and decision making skills?

Hi Friend.
First, I do not label myself a Christian, which is why I pointed out that thinking ‘creation’ is rational is not de facto support of Christianity.

Second, the bulk of the commentary on this thread is about whether or not belief in the supernatural is rational or not. Discussing whether ‘creation’ is rational or not is a logical part of the topic of belief in the supernatural, is it not?

Third, I am limiting my discussion to entirely one point: is it rational to believe that something created the universe. Not what it is, what the purpose would be if so, if it’s in fact true or not; merely whether there is a reason such an idea should be considered ‘rational.’

jtradke said:

Yes, but “everything has a cause” is surely an irrational justification for positing an entity which does not have a cause.

I personally concede that point. However, look at it this way. If most everything you see around you has a source or ‘creator,’ would the average person be more or less rational to think that everything came by way or source or creation; or that it all sprang from nothing? Again, I’m not saying it’s true, or that there is actual evidence of such, but what would the average person be made to think by mere observation of the world around them?

Just my .02. Obviously every one will have their own opinion, and I’ll not post on the topic again in this commentary, as it seems unwelcome.

Cheers!

Yes, but “everything has a cause” is surely an irrational justification for positing an entity which does not have a cause.

Moderates are hypocrites, and, although evil, fundamentalists

Everyone is a hypocrite. None of us live up to our perfect ideals. So what?

Fundamentalists are not evil. Sadly misled? Yes. But evil? I’m sure a few are, just as in any other group, but that’s not the rule. Must fundamentalists are nice, sincere, loving people who care about the same things as everyone else does: taking care of their families and finding the best way to live on this earth.

Can the way a person views the world, magically, or scientifically, affect their other critical thinking and decision making skills?

Nor is this the same as saying that the Christian god is real, Allah is real, Buddha is real, no: I’m simply pointing out what is ‘rational’ for the average person to believe, based on their own observation of the world around them.

But the statement ’something is never created from nothing’ is completely bogus! Provided you accept that some things are beyond our current comprehension, and that an exception to this particular rule isn’t ‘impossible’, it’s obvious this isn’t the case. It’s like saying that nobody in the world can speak a language other than english, simply because everyone you’ve ever met speaks english: in another country, different rules apply.

Not really.

Your English language analogy doesn’t apply because people can use only the data they are given. That’s like saying we cannot conduct scientific experiments because the rules may different on some other planet.

My point is that it is not ‘irrational’ to believe in a creator, or ’source,’ if you will, because nothing in our world comes into being without a source, whether that source is a seed, egg, or whatever. People can look around and view existence as it is and be led to believe that something must have ’sourced’ everything because everything else they see has a source. If everything that we know of has a source, it’s more irrational to believe something that exists does not have a source than to believe it does. To believe otherwise means one has to disregard everything they see around them on a daily basis.

However, positing a ’source’ for all things is not the same as saying that the ’source’ is the Christian god, Allah, or any other being espoused by any religion.