This week, Overland published what can only be described as a puff piece on Richard Dawkins' visit to Australia. (If you have never heard of Richard Dawkins, he is arguably the world's most famous atheist and if you have never heard of Overland, it is an Australian literary journal). This is not the first time an Overland blogger has rubbished Richard Dawkins, although at least the previous article was well written, refrained from using the worst puns I have ever heard in my life and managed to make some sort of point.
Still, they kind of got me thinking. What is it that people really dislike about Richard Dawkins - is it the man or is it his beliefs?
Sure he can be pompous, condescending and even demeaning, but so what?
Those poor saps demeaned by Dawkins are only demeaned because of their inability to flesh out an articulate argument. Sure, calling Senator Fielding an "earthworm" after their stint on Q and A may have been a little harsh, but Dawkins did not hand pick Fielding for the panel.
Why didn't Q and A think ahead and select a creationist with an above average IQ, to even the playing field - or even one who knew how to string a sentence together - or is that a double oxymoron?
Sure he can be pompous, condescending and even demeaning, but so what?
Those poor saps demeaned by Dawkins are only demeaned because of their inability to flesh out an articulate argument. Sure, calling Senator Fielding an "earthworm" after their stint on Q and A may have been a little harsh, but Dawkins did not hand pick Fielding for the panel.
Why didn't Q and A think ahead and select a creationist with an above average IQ, to even the playing field - or even one who knew how to string a sentence together - or is that a double oxymoron?
Virtually every piece of negative press I have read about Dawkins, dismembers his personality as opposed to the merit of his argument. It's kind of ironic really, bashing the man because you don't like the way he bashes God. Is he above questioning - of course not, but neither is organised religion.
In my opinion, it is high time that someone stepped up to debunk some of the damaging myths that have kept human beings - particularly women - oppressed for 2000 years. After all, religious leaders/fanatics have been meniacal in their pursuit for world domination truth - so it is high time for some sort of balanced debate.
In my opinion, it is high time that someone stepped up to debunk some of the damaging myths that have kept human beings - particularly women - oppressed for 2000 years. After all, religious leaders/fanatics have been meniacal in their pursuit for world domination truth - so it is high time for some sort of balanced debate.
Richard Dawkins is a professor of biology and an atheist who is interested in pursuing truth.
He has stated on more than one occasion that he has no qualms with religious followers per se; if having faith in a God(s) brings them comfort, then so be it.
But Dawkins' truth, which is science based, is incompatible with religious theory, and therefore just by virtue of his argument, he will undoubtedly offend the countless many, anchored in religious teaching.
But it is not just Christians who are put off by Richard Dawkins.
In The Age yesterday, columnist and self confessed atheist, Dick Gross referred to Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens as the "dynamic duo" of "new atheism". He went on to call them"an impediment to the growth of unbelief in our community".
Well Dick you are entitled to your opinion, but I have learnt more about the marvelous way in which this planet spins from Professor Dawkins than I have from you, or from any religion I have chosen to educate myself about, or have been forced to endure.
Perhaps what incenses people about Richard Dawkins is not his English pompousness, his forthright demeanor or his superior intellect.
No, perhaps it is because in 2010, we are still expected to tip toe around religion, to tread lightly lest we offend, because to criticize religion is blasphemous, a mortal sin, the unholiest taboo (most probably punishable by death).
Or maybe, just maybe, they hate him because deep down, they suspect that he is right. Either way, I can think of no other person who has singlehandedly united God lovers and God deniers in one cesspool of hate, like the uncompromising Richard Dawkins. Bless him.
I have posted this video once before but if you have not seen it then you are missing out. The intelligence squared debate - Christopher Hitchen and Stephen Fry vs The Catholics. Topic: Is the Catholic Church a Force for good in the world?
This speech by Richard Dawkins on militant atheism is both enlightening and amusing. Check it out.
If you have ever wondered What Causes Racism? then read this article published in New Matilda. It's about what is happening in this country with the highly profitable industry that is - international students.
10 Words You Need To Stop Misspelling was published by The Oatmeal.
10 Rules For Writing Fiction is a fabulous two-part series of do's and don'ts from some of the world's most brilliant writers. If you are a writer or even an avid reader, then this is for you.
Forgetting a child in the back seat of a hot, parked car is a horrifying mistake. The Washington Post asks Is it a crime?
This incredible photographic documentary published in The Atlantic, Where Patients Once Sought Asylum, is an eerie look inside America's now defunct mental asylums.
Political reporter, Lyndal Curtis wrote a very moving piece about losing her child. It's hard to read, but a poignant reminder to cherish those people we love the most.
