"The New Atheism" is, in my opinion, long overdue - our reticence to engage at all levels with the religious threat has helped produce the current situation of paralysis in the face of Islamic terror (or for that matter, George Bush's own flavour of Christian terror!).

The "four horsemen" - Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens and Harris - are being attacked by a variety of writers on the idiot fringe of secularism. It's classic fare for them - they care more about policing the thought crimes of other atheists than bringing religious groups to heel.

Hume in particular seems completely unaware of the efforts by groups like "Answers in Genesis" and "Truth in Science" to infiltrate UK schools, or indeed that the Government's "academy" program has turned the reins of a number of schools over to precisely the sort of religious fundamentalists that he considers not to be growing in influence.

You have to have your head wedged somewhere particularly dark to not see this as a threat.

Ian Lowe, Airdrie, UK,

Here is Christopher Hitchens in "God is not Great":

"I leave it to the faithful to burn each other’s churches and mosques and synagogues, which they can always be relied upon to do. When I go to the mosque, I take off my shoes. When I go to the synagogue, I cover my head."

Where is the "zealotry" in that?

Roland, Toronto, Canada

Mick Humes column now presents the absurd idea that the 'new atheists' (a perjorative term not used by the atheists in question) are bigots and zealots. Hitchens, Dawkins et al are not calling for the eradication of religion, only for a liberation of the intellect from those bad old ideas. Contrast that with the religious demand for the aboition of israel and the religous belief that certain tribes are endorsed or supported by god.

Edwyn Mayhew, London, England

Actually, Mick, you do appear to have more in common with "religious folk" that with real atheists like me.
You see, Marxism is a belief-system too. So if, as you say, you're a Marxist, then I imagine you too are a believer.
(Don't get me wrong. There are elements of Marx' philosophy which I accept. And I admire the man as a thoughtful analyst of his times. But I don't believe in his teachings, and so I don't call myself a Marxist.)
It's a well-know fact that people with a penchant for "faith" are prone to quit one belief, only to adopt another. The devout Catholic becomes the hardliner communist - for example.
Somehow I get the feeling that you are subconsciously looking for a faith. But I may be wrong, of course.

alan, germany,

I have had many a debate with humanists as a Christian and found myself respecting them and agreeing with much of what was said. The new atheists are cynical, too certain nothing exsists and arrogant to boot - they worry me also.

Ian Payne, WALSALL,

As an athiest, I do not feel the emotions you describe. I believe that the universe was not merely made by a being - and its size and beauty are all the more spine-tingling for it. We are on a truly remarkable planet and, if there is no heaven, we must make the best we possibly can of what time we have.

Ben, York,

When did book writing become zealotry? The population at large may never have been less religious but this is in stark contrast to the increasing religious influence in government.

Mick Hume seems to have missed the increasingly strident pronouncements of the Catholic Bishops, the growth of faith schools, the creationist anti-science activism, intense religious lobbying over the Human Fertilisation bill, state schools prevented from supporting Amnesty due to their stance on abortion and on and on. More tea, Vicar?

I cannot fathom how he makes the leap from not believing in gods to diminishing the scope of human achievement. It is the religious that give the credit for our achievements to the non-human and non-existent.

I am baffled that an atheist derides atheism for its lack of salvation prospects (why should it have any?) and favours adding Creators to the recipe for better humans.

Heroically muddled.

nonplussed, London, UK

I was pleased to read Richard Dawkins' recent "best-seller", which in no way, as I read it, advocates any such attitude of humanistic despair and.

On the contrary, the objection is to ignorance, and the presumption that religious leaders are specially qualified to prescribe rules of morality and human behaviour.

The individual is encouraged to perceive the universe as an object of wonderment, to understand the real "causes of things", and to recognise a spirituality for mankind's diverse evolution which is not reliant on the dogma and control of competing, and often hostile, religions.

Peter J Hinton-Green, Johannesburg, South Africa

Influence of religion over our lives is on rise today !!!

I find it amazing that anybody can doubt that

I am in my 60s and have always been bombarded by it and for a while thought and hoped it would fade away but over the last few years it has got much worse

No wonder we atheists feel so angry
You can't see this?
Perhaps you were joking.I'll just have to assume thats the case

David Hudson, Farnham, England