A library.
One.
By fundamentalists.

That doesn't mean that all, or even most, Muslims don't value mobile phones, clean water and penicillin, does it?

And I am supposedly the one who is trivialising the debate?

Also, can you logically point out my prejudices regarding this subject please?
Note the word "logically".

Dawkins' initial rationale for trying to get into this whole debate was due to 'fundamentalist' christian cobblers encroaching on areas such as science and education in the US. The same was true for Hitchens.

Personally I can fully understand why Dawkins and co start coming out with more and more terse comments about religion because the religious amongst us are simply unable to debate any of these topics properly, assuming that saying things more loudly and 'passionately' constitutes some kind of logical arguement.

Probably the single most telling area of 'debate' for me is when the religious of any kind are confronted with the conflicting beliefs of other mass religions. The monothesitic simply cannot address this most basic inconsistency in their beliefs.

What has that got to do with it? Building a nuclear reactor isn't scholarly scientific research any more than building a bridge is or a surgeon taking out someone's appendix. Surely Dawkins was contrasting Islam in the past which did do scholarly scientific research with the current extremists who don't.

This is spot on. IMO.

This thread is just another of Dally's moans about people criticising religion.
Same-old, same-old.