…Continued

Now you’re suggesting that one can do things “in the name of” QM, just as things can be done “in the name of” religion - one couldn’t; and that it would be just as useful to refer to DM as "God" - it wouldn't be, because the term "god" carries with it some baggage because of its historical use.

You are trying to pass off religion and science as almost exactly the same thing, just with different wording. Speaking of which…

<<Dawkins et al arrogantly refuse to [accept that somebody else's explanation may use different words for concepts that we share] …>>

Not when that's actually the case: http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm

I have demonstrated that all of the parallels you draw between science and religion, however, are false. And why would you try to draw parallels that theists not only don’t try to draw themselves, but often deny in their attempts to portray the two as answering different questions?

I’m sorry, but this gripe you have with Dawkins et al. is a total non-issue. Religion may (sometimes) satisfy the human need to explain things that are (sometimes) shared by science, but that doesn’t mean that theists use the same methodology as scientists, and to suggest that it does is a non sequitur. Furthermore, the fact that both science and religion pursue explanations and satisfy our need for them does not then mean that they're both as rational or useful as each other, and any suggestion that it does only further suggests that the arguments and goals of Dawkins et al. are bang on target.

Talking about time ...

Here's one of my favourites from J.R.R. Tolkien:

"I sit beside the fire and think
Of all that I have seen
Of meadow flowers and butterflies
In summers that have been

Of yellow leaves and gossamer
In autumns that there were
With morning mist and silver sun
And wind upon my hair

I sit beside the fire and think
Of how the world will be
When winter comes without a spring
that I shall ever see

For still there are so many things
That I have never seen
In every word in every spring
There is a different green

I sit beside the fire and think
Of people long ago
And people that will see a world
That I shall never know

But all the while I sit and think
Of times there were before
I listen for returning feet
And voices at the door."

T = 1/0

Bazz: T = 1/0

Can't be. T = 1/0 = 1
Try this one.
T = 2*F (Fun). Time flys.

F = (BBQ+b)(Nf+k)

BBQ = BBQ
b or w = Beers or wine
N = Number
f = friend
k = kids
T = Time

Therefore T = 2*(BBQ+b)(Nf+k)

That works for me.

OK, T=1/0
Does not calculate, no result

I'm finding sweeping analogies about QM and Boyle's Law hard to fathom.

For example, " It would be like attacking Boyle's Law because it explains how gases behave even though Boyle had no idea what gases really were." Gas laws and QM are are mathematically derivable from some first principles and assumptions bound up in models. The predictive power of a model is what gives it credence, and gas laws and QM certainly have that.

If you are saying the God "model" is no different from a scientific model, i.e. it is a mental construct, OK, but what value has it if only a catchall for anything science leaves unresolved, which is daily diminishing. So, why should HDK give it the respect of a scientific model, if only to spare feelings? They do respect what religion can provide, without having to respect it from a scientific standpoint, as AJP said.

Back to the point, again. What should be done with those whose particular mental constructs are threatening the rest of us? It's fine to protest at Lakemba but what of those going beyond protest and inciting extremism? Is a fine and 'move along please' enough? Shouldn't we be looking at community safety less wide-eyed?