Anti-balaka

Originally posted by twhitehead
What is fundamentalism? Surely anyone who is not a fundamentalist is not really a theist, but only pretending?

The problem is not fundamentalism, the problem is humanities tendency to group identity. Whenever you have large groups with strong identities living in close proximity but not sufficiently interacting socially, then expect trouble. The groups ...[text shortened]... pecially when the religious leaders or members see conflict as a means to spread their religion.

Gosh, an entire first page on this topic without mention of Stalin and Mao! Let me do the honors.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What is fundamentalism? Surely anyone who is not a fundamentalist is not really a theist, but only pretending?

The problem is not fundamentalism, the problem is humanities tendency to group identity. Whenever you have large groups with strong identities living in close proximity but not sufficiently interacting socially, then expect trouble. The groups ...[text shortened]... pecially when the religious leaders or members see conflict as a means to spread their religion.

Hi twitehead, we haven't crossed swords for quite a while, and I have always found you to be a worthy opponent.

However, in this instance I don't believe we are in disagreement. It just seems to me that what you are referring to is more racism, ethnic superiority, or all the different aspects that make "groups" different from each other.

I see Fundamentalism as something specifically related to religion, and specifically referring to a belief that MY religion or belief is THE ONLY TRUE ONE. The step from that belief to the persecution of the OTHER, is only a small step.

Btw, I don't agree with your opening statement. Fundamentalism is most definitely NOT synonymous with theism. In fact, I don't like the word theist because it is far too general: the Romans, Greeks and Hindus are/were all theists, and what is actually the common denominator? You can most certainly be a "theist" without feeling you are the only one with copyright to the Truth.

Originally posted by sonship

Christians are not better than others, don't have higher moral, are not chosen by god in any way. Christians simply are one part of humanity, not better, not worse.

Yea FabianFnas, But because you can point that out, that makes how much better ?

The believers I meet with, and there are thousands I've met, live by the highest standard of morality as through Christ their Lord.

www.localchurches.org

So you say that the christian people you know and meet, live by the highest standard of morality - and as such are better people than the rest?

If I ask the members of Anti-balaka if they, with the bible in the left hand and the machete in their right hand, are of higher standard than their victims, they would certainly answer "Yes of course! God is with us!" So even they, according to their own twisted christian views live by the highest standard of morality as through Christ their Lord.

I say - christians, as a group, is not better than any other religion.
There are good christian people and there are good non-christian people.
There are bad christian people (!) and there are bad non-christian people.
Christians, as a group, are not of higher standard than others.

sonship ask me: "But because you can point that out, that makes how much better ?"
My answer: To show christians that they are not to be considered having good moral more than others. Christians can very well be murderers, terrorists, and prone to violence.

Originally posted by CalJust
I see Fundamentalism as something specifically related to religion, and specifically referring to a belief that MY religion or belief is THE ONLY TRUE ONE. The step from that belief to the persecution of the OTHER, is only a small step.

Well that is not the Wikipedia definition. Not that I am saying you are wrong, but rather I was not sure of your meaning, hence my request for clarification in my previous post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

Btw, I don't agree with your opening statement. Fundamentalism is most definitely NOT synonymous with theism. In fact, I don't like the word theist because it is far too general: the Romans, Greeks and Hindus are/were all theists, and what is actually the common denominator? You can most certainly be a "theist" without feeling you are the only one with copyright to the Truth.
It nevertheless seems to me that most theists would at a minimum claim that what they believe is the truth and that anyone who disagrees necessarily has it wrong. I think the only room for leeway is how strongly you feel that you are right and they are wrong, and what you do about it.
Do you perhaps think the Hindus have it right? Or do you think they may be right? Are you able to estimate the likelihood that they are right?
Do you feel that everyone is just guessing, or are your beliefs based on more than that?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It nevertheless seems to me that most theists would at a minimum claim that what they believe is the truth and that anyone who disagrees necessarily has it wrong.
Do you perhaps think the Hindus have it right? Or do you think they may be right? Are you able to estimate the likelihood that they are right?
Do you feel that everyone is just guessing, or are your beliefs based on more than that?

Now we come to some really nitty gritty stuff. This is what I have been trying to get to all along, but you have actually succeeded in putting your finger on it.

If you stand ten people in a row, starting with yourself as an atheist, then RJhinds as the evangelical, then RC or Galvaston as the JW, then my friend the Buddhist, then Dasa, a Hindu, a muslim and so on - you get the general idea - and ask them one question: Are you absolutely convinced in your own mind that your explanation of Reality and Truth is the correct one, and that the viewpoint of the others standing here with you are wrong? there is a very good chance that the answer in each case will be a resounding YES!

Now, as a logician you know that even though they may all be absolutely sincere, there is no possibility that they ALL can be right. Maybe not even two can be correct at the same time!

So we are left with two alternatives: either ONE of them is correct and really has the TRUTH, or none of them.

That is the conventional view, and most of the posters on this forum will certainly say I AM THAT ONE!

However, there is an alternative view. True, the beliefs of some of those standing in our lineup are simply not credible and should be rejected. (Aside: by whom, and on whose judgement?) but it is quite possible (and this is the viewpoint that I hold) the REAL TRUTH is so much bigger than any one set of doctrines, and that (it is possible!) that ALL those standing in the line have a portion of the truth.

Yes, I do believe that there are elements in Hindu beliefs that are credible. Definitely in Buddhism and Islam. As far as the Christian God is concerned, how many times in the Bible do we read the words: "the whole earth", or "all mankind" being under his control and jurisdiction? If the christian God is worth His salt, He will be far greater than Christianity, and the way that most Christians and Jews perceive Him.

Before I get burned at the stake, let me say that I am not the only one - clearly you have not come across any Christians (or even theists) who are prepared to make allowances for the non-exclusivity of their faith. But one book that really explains this position beautifully is "Tales of Wonder" by Huston Smith. He was, in rotation, a practicing Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Christian, and in each religion he says he learnt deep truths.

As I said to Fabian elsewhere, i have a lot of respect for atheists who arrive at their position honestly and with due diligence. Don't for a moment think that I am trying to convert you!

Does this maybe answer your closing questions?