# How Can There Be NON-Fundamentalists? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 24, 2004, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896 "2004-09-24T17:06:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/101 "2005-04-15T21:04:25Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > Harris argues that these people are making deals with themselves psychologically, because if they admitted that _some_ of their religion is outdated rantings from thousands of years ago, they’d have to let in a chink of reason and admit that maybe _none_ of their Holy Book held water. > > Opinions? I’d be willing to admit that. It seems to me that only God is infallible, and if people say the Bible is infallible, then they are saying that the Bible is God. Parts of it obviously are wrong; I mean, when two statements contradict, both cannot be true. I guess I’m fortunate that my faith is based on personal experience and not on the book. Well, that’s not perfectly accurate. The book is a part of it. But only a part. Certainly not a deal breaking part. There are other books that are just as good or better anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/102 "2005-04-18T02:57:36Z")
This brings to mind a thought I had about crazy religious beliefs, and which beliefs are totally considered sane or not by a set of educated people such as the members of this message board. Belief in God: Sane Belief that God has talked to people: Sane, but perhaps a bit odd Belief that God talks to you: Totally insane. Belief that praying is a good thing to do: Sane Belief that God is listening to your prayers: Sane, but perhaps a bit odd Belief that prayer actually works, like if you pray for God to do x, x has an increased chance of happening: Insane Belief in the Bible: Sane Belief that at least some specific things in the Bible are literally true: Sane Belief that Revelations is true, and the kind of life we know will end someday: Not very sane Belief that the Rapture will come in your lifetime, so be prepared: Totally insane. The above might be off base, but if not then it sort of tells me that people do the whole religion thing because they like the ritual, or the philosophy, or some other reason that has nothing to do with the supernatural. But religion is all about the supernatural, in fact it is the only thing that religion brings to the table that nothing else does. I think if people were really serious about religion, what is considered sane or not would be quite a bit different. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/103 "2005-04-18T16:29:06Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > Harris argues that these people are making deals with themselves psychologically, because if they admitted that _some_ of their religion is outdated rantings from thousands of years ago, they’d have to let in a chink of reason and admit that maybe _none_ of their Holy Book held water. Is it possible they already let in that chink of reason which led them to interpret the bible in a way that makes sense to them personally and in the context of current times? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/104 "2005-04-18T18:19:11Z")
I have conclusive proof that **Eve** does not exist. To start with, the accounts of her life are clearly mythical: Jungian archetypes translated into a story of a modern Teiresias. Then there are clear errors in works attributed to her. Factual details in Platinum Girl, the Brief Madcap Life of Kay Kendall, and Vamp! are capable of being ferreted out by the diligent eye. Since we can know her only through her writings, and they contain factual errors, it’s obvious that she herself does not really exist, and is the product of a conspiracy. (Personally I suspect that **Ukulele Ike** is behind it; he was the first to claim to have discovered her as an individual, when she was going under a fictitious name.) Anyone with an ounce of common sense would realize that the entire Eve scenario is really part of a massive plot by the New York intelligentsia to dominate the rest of the world. I have my evidence; I won’t be fooled again! Sincerely, Athier Than Thou ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/105 "2005-04-18T19:16:54Z")
Um, Polycarp, I see Eve coming this way, and she looks pissed. I think that is a baseball bat she’s carrying. (Translated: I may not be able to prove China/Eve exists, by referring to books, but I can physically go there. I can also, theoretically kidnap the person who denies the existence of china, and take them there. (Or, she can go to them.) If they still deny the existence of China/Eve, in Chyna-mode, well, you have em’ bound and gagged. Toss em’ off at a sanitarium. ---
**Author:** ![Walker\_in\_Eternity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/46a35a/32.png) [@Walker\_in\_Eternity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walker_in_Eternity)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2005, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/106 "2005-04-19T08:30:35Z")
> [@Avumede](#): > > Belief in God: Sane > Belief that God has talked to people: Sane, but perhaps a bit odd > Belief that God talks to you: Totally insane. > > Belief that praying is a good thing to do: Sane > Belief that God is listening to your prayers: Sane, but perhaps a bit odd > Belief that prayer actually works, like if you pray for God to do x, x has an increased chance of happening: Insane > > Belief in the Bible: Sane > Belief that at least some specific things in the Bible are literally true: Sane > Belief that Revelations is true, and the kind of life we know will end someday: Not very sane > Belief that the Rapture will come in your lifetime, so be prepared: Totally insane. In my opinion (and I have read the Sam Harris’ Book) none of the above can be classed as sane. How can the belief that there is an omnipresent being, who micromanages the universe and expects some pretty strange rituals and dietary habits from those that believe in it/him/her be sane? This does not mean that I view practitioners of religious faiths to be insane, just that they have insane beliefs. If there were ever a book that should be translated into every language and read by the whole world, this is it. It shows the dangers presented to the whole world by fundamentalists of all faiths. I also note that in “End Of Faith” Harris mentions a considerable amount of text from the Koran, which according to the muslims is the literal word of god as desribed to Mohammed by the archangel Gabriel. This thread is taking a very christian centred view of faith, when in fact the book criticises fundamentalists of all faiths, with the exception of Jains and Bhuddists as I recall. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2005, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/107 "2005-04-19T08:38:28Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I have conclusive proof that **Eve** does not exist. … But I’ve _seen_ **Eve!** It was _divine._ ---
**Author:** ![High\_Cheese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8797f3/32.png) [@High\_Cheese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/High_Cheese)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2005, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896/108 "2005-04-19T11:16:34Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I’d be willing to admit that. It seems to me that only God is infallible, and if people say the Bible is infallible, then they are saying that the Bible is God. Parts of it obviously are wrong; I mean, when two statements contradict, both cannot be true. I guess I’m fortunate that my faith is based on personal experience and not on the book. Well, that’s not perfectly accurate. The book is a part of it. But only a part. Certainly not a deal breaking part. There are other books that are just as good or better anyway. I’m merely curious here, **Lib** , and not conjecturing anything. Quoting from above, “I guess I’m fortunate that my faith is based on personal experience and not on the book.” Could you expand on your claim of personal experience. And I mean beyond the fact that maybe one day you found 5 dollars when you were short 4 dollars rent. If I’m to believe in God, it’s not going to be merely because of a favorable event. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-there-be-non-fundamentalists/265896.md?page=5)