As I said, it's lessened in the last five or so years as the anger has receded – and it has. I've had to learn a new way to deal with my own family, for starters.

But the thread that led to this really did anger me.

I really don't care what people believe – they can believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden (and some do) if they want and, to coin a cliché, I'll defend their right to do that.

What I dislike intensely is when people try to force their beliefs on people who have other religious beliefs or none. This is nothing new, of course, but after a period of apparent tolerance, we seem to be seeing an increasing rise in religious fundamentalisms* and demands for special rights.

So you get the likes of people demanding that wearing a ring to indicate a commitment to chastity before marriage is recognised as a religious symbol and allowed in schools (I seriously feel for the girl whose parents were behind her pushing this). It has never been any such symbol until recently, when it was deemed so by US Christian fundamentalists – who in the face of all evidence of its counterproductive impact, still claim that abstinence-only sex education is the only acceptable variety.

So this is new. As is this culture of claiming that you can't be allowed near women waiting for an abortion if you're a nurse who has a 'conscience'. We've had legal abortion in the UK for decades and we only appear to have started having such problems in the last few years. Why's that? Were there no nurses of 'conscience' before? Have they only just materialised, along with pharmacists who are refusing on 'conscience' grounds to provide women with emergency contraception.

Where was all this 10, 20, 30 years ago? Why is it visible now?

Kirkstaller is a useful reminder that religious fundamentalism is not just about Islam or the US.

And then there's the arrogance of saying that the suffering of a child is neither here nor there, because heaven will be nice. It beggars belief. Or of telling others that you know enough about their religious experiences to tell them that they 'weren't doing it right'.

The latter feels particularly personal in light of what I've touched on. How dare he claim to (in effect) tell me I wasn't 'doing it right'. How dare he.

And to give more detail, there I was, at around 13, just going through puberty, having already taken onboard the lesson from my father's pulpit and his dinnertime sermons, that sex is sin, and having nobody to turn to and talk to as I started experiencing the mental and emotional aspects of puberty (a cursory check from my mother that I knew what would happen physically); and lying awake at night in a torment and praying – oh, praying so hard, for God to take the dirty feelings away – and no answer; no answer. Just the guilt, seeping deeper and deeper in.

And the growing belief that I was like a leper – yes, that was the word I used to describe myself to myself in my mindknows that I (and others) were not 'doing it right'. And that would be at the same time as declaring that it was perfectly fine for his god to torture an adolescent like that, because everything'll be nice "in the sweet by and by, when we meet at that beautiful shore".

I don't think he'd quite think himself the [ionly[/i one – but I do suspect he thinks he's one of only a very few who have heard and understood God correctly, and who act accordingly.

Look at the previous thread where he described Quakers as "apostates".

But such groups, however small, can be self-sustaining and supporting. I wasn't kidding earlier when I said I suspected that he'd be going back to his fellow congregants to tell them about the abuse he's suffering here at the hands of dreadful, filthy unbelievers and blasphemers. And that he will be partly seeing himself as a martyr.

On the other hand, I do think that this and the previous thread are shining a very clear light on Christian fundamentalism in this country. And that, I think, is useful.

You should see a shrink.

1. You have told us you believe in imaginary people.
2. You are convinced that you have had personal conversation with Jesus Christ.
3. You unhesitatingly say that if he told you to kill, you would do it.

All that you need now is for the voices in your head to tell you to do it and you probably actually would. As have loads of murderers in the past.

You need to realise that voices in your head telling you to do things are a problem.

As to whether your god would make such a request - hasn't he got form for asking people to do this sort of thing, in your Bible? Didn't he send his own son to a certain and pre-ordained torture and death? Hasn't he sent countless billions to the eternal flames of hellfire, with no hope of mercy for all eternity? Why then is it so unlikely?

If the request was to kill your own child, OT-stylee - would you do that?

If you can, just let Kirkstaller be. Don't judge. Don't feel pity. Don't think he's a loon. When people can really be like that. Their anger receeds. Thanks once again for sharing. As an example. I don't think he's arrogant. If he's genuine. I simply think he has strong beliefs and convictions. None of which I need let affect me or get angry by.

There are some things (weird sentence structure, for example) that may irk us, but that we can just 'let be'. Stating that abortion is worse than child rape, and that those who don't agree will burn in Hell, both fall way outside of that category.

Oh, and, let's hope his 'God' doesn't order him to kill someone you care about, eh?

That's fine and your entitled to stand by and watch, but Kirkstaller's beliefs are not harmless are they? This thread and the 1000 preceding posts were instigated by him using his poisonous beliefs to try and deny the rights of others.

You can choose to ignore it but I would actively encourage people to be angry about his homophobia, and if the basis of that homophobia is his rather pitiless religious fundamentalism then we are equally entitled to be angry about that.

It's a shame we don't have posters with different faiths and different levels of faith.

Listening to fundamentalists leaves me quite sad.

There's a video flying around twitter which, if you've got 2 hours to waste, is quite remarkable. Check PZ Myers or Matt Dillahunty's feed.

I suspect we do – well, certainly with different levels of faith. I suspect that there are plenty of people here who have a sort of religion lite, if you will. Or simply who don't feel sure, one way or the other.

But I also suspect that they don't feel secure enough in that being able to explain that in such a situation as this, as a fundamentalist does.

Plus there's perhaps a sense that some might 'have a go' at them if they do try – as, indeed, did Peggy some time back when explaining a situation he'd found himself in, in which (IIRC) he tried prayer out of a sense of desperation.

It would be interesting to hear from someone like, say, Rowan Williams, who has a deep faith but also has doubts and difficulties. I'm not saying I'd be convinced by him, but it would be interesting. I interviewed Donald Soper some years ago – I didn't have to agree with everything he said or to believe everything he believed, but I had – and retain – great respect for someone like that (not for their faith per se, incidentally) and for him, a deal of warmth. He was a genuinely nice man, who cared about his fellow human beings in general and went well beyond what the church(es) at the time considered acceptable (in his support for LGBT rights, for instance).

Agreed.
I almost feel sorry for the fundamentalists themselves. If their delusions were based on anything other than religion, with thousands of years of fabrication to reinforce them, they would be offered psychiatric help.

I don't have a problem with people believing in whatever God(s) they wish to, except when that belief impinges on the rights of others, although I believe in none. To deny anyone their right to superstition would be as intolerant as the op itself.

I believe that everyone should have the right to believe whatever they want, but that everyone else should have the right to challenge that belief as robustly as they see fit (within reason). I have every right to believe, for example, that global warming is some massive conspiracy on the part of the world's governments, designed solely to keep us in fear so that they can tax us more heavily. You, on the other hand, would have every right to ridicule me for holding such a stupid belief in the face of directly contradictory evidence. As far as I'm concerned, the same applies to religious belief, whether that's extreme fundamentalism like kirkstaller's, or the religion-lite that Mintball describes.

The term 'fundamentalism' is getting thrown around without any proper consideration of the true meaning of the word. Believing in God's creation, the resurrection and his second coming does not really warrant such a label and the rabid connotations which come with it. For a short summary of my beliefs, they are broadly in tune with the following basis of faith: www.eauk.org/connect/about-us/basis-of-faith.cfm Nothing controversial, nothing nasty, nothing offensive. If you want to see real fundamentalism, go check out the hyper-calvinistic churches in the US. The WBC get most of the exposure but they are the tip of the heresy iceberg. At least I'm trying to save you; these people just want to gloat.

The term 'fundamentalism' is getting thrown around without any proper consideration of the true meaning of the word. Believing in God's creation, the resurrection and his second coming does not really warrant such a label and the rabid connotations which come with it. For a short summary of my beliefs, they are broadly in tune with the following basis of faith: www.eauk.org/connect/about-us/basis-of-faith.cfm Nothing controversial, nothing nasty, nothing offensive. If you want to see real fundamentalism, go check out the hyper-calvinistic churches in the US. The WBC get most of the exposure but they are the tip of the heresy iceberg. At least I'm trying to save you; these people just want to gloat.

No. No, it is not.