http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7156783.stm

As an agnostic I don't have any axe to grind. I thought much of it was sound common sense and I especially agreed with, "Any kind of fundamentalism, be it Biblical, atheistic or Islamic, is dangerous."

There's no such thing as 'atheistic fundementalism'! Atheists, on the whole, don't care about the Nativity and crosses in Christian schools. He was right in saying "Any kind of fundamentalism, be it Biblical, atheistic or Islamic, is dangerous." In my view there should be no religious schools, whether it be Christian, Islamic, Hindu etc. because that brings about single-mindedness. Schools should be generic and teach all religions and atheism and let the children make up their own minds! Atheism is not a religion and as such has no rules like Christianity and Islam to break, thus there can be no fundementalism.

I am an atheist and have only recently felt able to say this out loud. As for atheist fundamentalism? The "Winterval" thing is nothing to do with us: it was a MARKETING strategy that ran for three months in one Midlands town. Once. In the 90s. If I had to guess, i would say the lack of nativity plays has more to do with not offending other religions, or apathy. Certainly, my son has had religion instruction for the last 11 years and they still have yet to mention Humanism. He raised it himself in the end: appaently, there is one lesson in year 11. So not feeling like my people are taking over just yet! This is quite funny really. The worst most atheists think of theist is that some of their views are a bit silly: they think we will burn in Hell. Seems a little harsh...

Muslims murdered 3000 people in the twin towers, suicide bombed the underground and have murdered thousands of innocent people round the world in the past few years including dozens in Pakistan today and this clown worries that some silly, politically correct, Labour councils call Christmas "Winterval". When will these idiotic Christian leaders learn that their enemy is Islam. Most atheists couldn't give a toss what believers in superstition do as long as it doesn't affect them or oth er right thinking people. Beside which, it seems that with the Christian church in this country, if you don't like their beliefs don't worry, they'll have different ones tomorrow!

The Archbishop is talking utter tosh and should know better than to base his rant on urban legend propergated by the right wing press. Just a sermon on the real meaning of Christmas would have sufficed. Its almost becoming like a traditional panto whinging about Christianity under attack when in truth it's over exaggerated. Lets hear the real Christmas message coming from these bishops lips rather than the political tripe and rant they have taken upon themselves to rant about every December.

You have, obviously, not read the Koran or other works by Mohammed or you would not have made this naive reply. When the twin towers were bombed crowds in many Muslim countries came out onto the streets and cheered. A large percentage of the Muslims living in this country said that the attack was justified and could also understand the reasons for the attack on the underground. Are you trying to claim that none of these were Muslims either? As for Christianity, Mohammed said, when asked what was the greatest sin, that it was to believe that any one could rule with Allah. It is very clear that he was referring to Christian doctrine and also that he didn't understand it. Although Jesus is accepted as a Prophet in Islam they do not believe he was the Son of God. If people who believe that Christianity is the greatest sin are not the enemies of Christianity I give in! I am an atheist but have come to this belief from studying most of the world's largest religions in depth as well as science and mathematics. It is apparent you have become an atheist as an act of faith! You need to study more and assume less.

deemikay well, I would like Humanism taught in RE so that a widely-held system of ethics that doesn't require a god is represented as an alternative to the many that do. I did not read Richard Dawkins as saying that bringing up children according to religious beliefs was child abuse: but the assumption that a child WILL take the religion of their parents seems to run it pretty close. I did follow through on this with my own children, and it wasn't easy. I let them go to religious services and meetings and prefaced my own views with "I think that..."

The Archbishop can no more prove there is a God than an atheist can prove to him there is none. His tone indicates that atheists are somehow wrong, sinister and a threat to society. If people want to believe in fantasy let them; if people do not want to; let them. Always at the back of my atheist mind is the pain and misery in the world, from one point of view caused by the neglect of an omnipotent being; from the other the insidious politics and cruelties caused by religious fanatics - the inquisition, the IRA, Al Qaida, Saudi Arabia, the fatwah on Salman Rushdie to name but a few. This Welsh Witch Doctor is potentially dangerous. Only in easy going UK will his nonsense be ignored.

sounds like he just doesnt like big words.

...why do I sign myself as anonymous? Because I fear attacks on my sensible atheist family by mentally unsound religious freaks. If I went around saying - in public - that teddy bears were having a picnic in the woods - I'd be committed. Archbish Welsh Windbag has teddy bears picnicking in his head - and one is called Mohammed

For those who do not know what the word "fundamentalisim" means... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

I cut part of it out below. OK, he is not agin atheists. He is complaining about lefty socialist positive discriminators who suck up to minorities like Moslems and Hindus but deny our parish and school nativity plays. Most atheists are on his side here so he has made an error in labelling - too polite to use the term c**ts. My normal reaction to God Squadders making out I am in the wrong team is to accuse them of superstitious mumbo jumbo. As for being in the House of Lords because you belong to some religious club I can get fundamental about that i.e get a proper job instead of sponging and casting powders into the fire like some witch doctor Biological adaptation? If a caveman saw the aurora borealis, shooting stars, and a mother thunderstorm it would be fair to suspect there's some hoodo magic about. Later - if you lived in a mud hut and these missionaries turn up and start building cathedrals before hospitals and schools you'd fall for that con as well. Voltaire was an atheist but he was glad his servants were not - what's that saying about keeping the thick people in their place? There's another thread on this site where someone is banging on about wise gods and thick mankind so I'm off to look at that one. Burn him! Burn him! ********** The archbishop said "atheistic fundamentalism" was a new phenomenon. He said it advocated that religion in general and Christianity in particular have no substance, and that some view the faith as "superstitious nonsense". God is not exclusive, he is on the side of the whole of humanity with all its variety Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan As well as leading to Christmas being called "Winterval," the archbishop said "virulent, almost irrational" attacks on Christianity led to hospitals removing all Christian symbols from their chapels, and schools refusing to allow children to send Christmas cards with a Christian message.

I think there's a fundamental difference between religious fundamentalism and Atheistic fundamentalism. In the case of religious fundamentalism, extreme measures are usually justified through the claim that they are simply following God's word to the letter. Atheists, on the other hand, have no "God's Word" to support unreasonable actions. Generally, Atheistic Fundamentalisms is less dangerous than those who take religion to extremes, because unlike the fundamentals (i.e. Religious texts) followed by Theistic extremists, the fundamentals of Atheism don't give specific, stated justification to kill people or deny them their basic rights. The only fundamental in Atheism is "God Does Not Exist". Also, I think a better word for what the Archbishop is talking about would be "Secular Fundamentalism". Not having nativity plays in schools or crosses in hospital chapels is not Atheistic, it's just not affiliated with any particular religion (i.e. Secular). If you ask me, the Archbishop is rather hypocritical in saying things like "God is not exclusive, he is on the side of the whole of humanity with all its variety" And yet also claiming that anything not including religion and its traditions is Atheistic.

What does the word 'fundamentalist' mean? I think that it is generally agreed that in the context of christianity a fundamentalist is a person who claims that the proper conduct and beliefs of a christian are determined by the most literal reading possible of the bible, usually the Authorized Version. Extrapolating from this, we can conclude that Islamic fundamentalists are muslims who believe that the proper conduct and beliefs of muslims are determined by the most literal reading possible of the Koran. I don't know about the Koran but I do know that the bible appears to be self-contradictory, and this makes determining what constitutes right behaviour difficult; but fundamentalists solve the problem by being prone to schism, but each fundamentalist bases his actions and beliefs on his own interpretation of the text of his choice. There is no defining text of atheism because atheism needs no defining text. Atheists have found no evidence to persuade them that a god exists. Some strong atheists believe that no god exists, but for most, the question is more open than that. With no compelling evidence for the existence of a god, atheists conclude that there is not much point in behaving according to the barbarous prescriptions of silly books, written hundreds of years ago by ignorant pastoralists. There are no atheist fundamentalists, because there are no holy books for atheists. Religious people feel their beliefs threatened by the use of reason, as well they ought to. One way they defend their own irrationality is to claim that atheism is a religion and stands on the same kind of philosophical foundation as their own favoured delusions; it doesn't: it is not a system of belief, it is the result of reasoned inquiry that has a tentative conclusion, based on the evidence available, that it is very probable that gods do not exist. So the archbishop displays muddled thinking as all religious people must: there is no such thing as an atheist fundamentalist, and no such thing as atheistic fundamentalism.

I'd be as rabid as the Archbishop too, if I had to face the very real possibility of having to get a real job if less people attended church.

It's common to try and attack atheism by using the terminology of religion. Often it's said that atheism IS a religion - which of course is simply ridiculous. They do it because at the most basic levels, they know there are no good arguments for religion so they revert to propaganda techniques. It's the last refuge if one who knows his philosophy is bankrupt. But what would "atheistic fundamentalists" be or believe? Atheists don't believe in god - some write or talk about it. So? +5

Considering his region is once again in the spotlight for poking little boys in the butthole, he needs to attack somebody as a distraction. I find it sad, yet amusing.

I think the term he was looking for was "atheistic fanaticism." Fundamentalism is adhering completely to the *basic* tenets of a religion. In the case of atheism, there is only one basic rule, and that is that to be an atheist, you cannot believe in any gods. My girlfriend is what you would call a "fundamental atheist;" she does not believe in God, but she also does not care what the theists are up to or if they are teaching creationism or saying "under God" in the pledge or anything like that. I've never even heard her refer to herself as an atheist. I don't know why any Christian would want to attack her or anyone like her, since they are the least threatening of all atheists. However, his use of the term is mostly just trying to equate atheism with religion. That's a common tactic used by religious folks to attempt to pull atheists down to their level. A religious fundamentalist is considered a dangerous thing, because they have strong beliefs and will do anything to follow them. Not necessarily violent things, but things that might bring change that people don't like. So, calling some atheists fundamentalists makes them seem dangerous too. If he was not trying to use words to trick people into thinking he has a good reason to attack this so-called "fundamentalism," he would have called it something like "atheistic activism." That is more accurate and less confusing.

He's an Archbishop, that's his job. If he used logic in his philosophical decisions, he'd be out of a job. By the way, I used philosophical instead of religious because I assume the Archbishop is Church of England. In the long run the Church of England should be commended because they took religion out of the church and are the main reason there are more agnostics and atheists in the British Commonwealth. Also the religious tends to look at things as religious beliefs because they have no way to relate to the absence of belief. Of course there is no such thing as an atheistic fundamentalist. It's a non-sequitur like military intelligence. The words just don't go together.

the mans clearly a idiot who is desperite to regain the power of the church by spreading lies about atheism.Mayby he's scaried he'll have to get a real job and the winterval thing was a isolated insident.