Luciferase, they are trying to argue with religionists on deductive grounds, when religion is largely inductively derived.

They suggest that the religious experience must be inherently solipsistic (self-referential) and is therefore an entirely personal exercise which should have no place in the doings of the world, but then contradict themselves by trying to make people accept their view that their brand of atheism (which is also an entirely personal exercise) has some preeminent right to be heard.

Dawkins and Krauss have some interesting things to say, Pinker has much more interesting things to say, but for my money Hitchens was just a bandwagon-rider.

Western enlightenment philosophy, which these "public intellectuals" (as Krauss lies to call himself ina fit of purest wankerism) would all like to claim as their own is derived directly from Western theology and science (natural philosophy)follows on directly from that. The atheist argument that Dawkins et al put forward is conceptually the same sort of thing that theology students debate in seminaries and their brand of atheism is nearer to a religious doctrine than they'd like to admit.

Is Mise, I wasn't thinking along those lines, but you make a good point.

What I: was getting at is that there a lack of formal education does not imply a lack of capacity for insightful thought. Hitchens was simply being a snob.

"they are trying to argue with religionists on deductive grounds, when religion is largely inductively derived."

Whether a god exists, or not, was not their argument. Science cannot falsify such a belief, and Hitchens & Co, knew(know) it. They proposed alternatives to belief, founded in science. Their argument was with the impact of belief upon lives of non-believers, using all the logic, reason and science they could muster. Solipsism is a wish, but not expected it of the religious.

To characterize atheism as a 'belief', well, musn't the god's existence, rather than its non-existence, to be supported scientifically? A scientific hypothesis (belief) is not testable by induction. Hitchens appreciated this too well, and perhaps why you don't appreciate him.

Back to the point. A laissez-faire approach to Islamisicm is now a luxury. There are useful idiots (and I venture that may be all of us, on either side of the divide) to be countered by argument but, most of all, we must take security measures along the lines now being taken in France, IMO.

If Australia is at 'war' with terrorism, and therefore IS/Daesh, should those who at demonstrate their sympathies, by their words or (limited) actions, be interned until a truce is reached, as in the world wars (if there can be a truce between nations and ideologies), or, should they be left alone to cultivate their sympathies into others?

Constance,

We should strive to be historically accurate, Henry VIII was infected by syphilis in later life but he was very well educated and as Jay says was a playwright etc., but one thing that he was not was a Protestant ; he would probably have executed anyone who preached the Protestantism of later years.
It is arguable that Thomas Cranmer did not dare to introduce his reforms (for which he died under Mary I) until Henry VIII was dead.

One important point is missed if we only consider Islam a religion. It is not essentially a personal faith as we consider religions. It is essentially a POLITICAL world view based in shariah laws. In the view of the devout exponents of Islam any other form of government and law if not of Allah is spurious and must be exterminated otherwise we are not following the Laws of Allah. That is why Muslims influenced by Westernized values or democratic free speech must be exterminated. IT is the LAW of ALLAH.

10 pages of Posts & I get this to-day. Late again Graham. I've got a lot of catching up to do.

Banjo: One speaker at the rally, Sufyan Badar, took aim at what he called the arrogant West. "They force their world view onto us. "We rejected freedom yesterday, we rejected freedom today and we reject your freedom tomorrow," he said.

If they reject "Freedom of Speech" then why are they using it? Blatant Hypocracy.

Poirot: How was the rally,? Did you see Perciles, Arjay, Steelie etc.? How about a report.

Graig: they come from a very old culture (no, not Islam, but Assyrian
SPQR: There have been at least a dozen empires since that time that have controlled the same land.
In that case They could be Egyptian, Hittite, Hyksos, Philistine, Persian, Hebrew, Greek, Roman & a few others as well.

Spin Doc: It’s interesting that the PC Left try to blame our lack of “tolerance” as the cause of our woes.

The PC have a hide talking about intolerance.

SOL: Craig and Foxy are correct in saying that we are ALL allowed freedom of speech in Australia, and if that means the protesters at Lakemba want to have their say about how they don't want their prophet depicted, then that is their right.

& We have the right to depict the Mad Mahomet any way we like & the right to Demonstrate against Islam as well. Or, as the PC Left would have it. A majority is not allowed to Demonstrate against the minority.