Normally I'd have a photo of the person I'm discussing.  Unfortunately just seeing Dawkin's name is bringing figurative bile to the back of my throat.  For this reason I can't stomach a picture.
Normally I’d have a photo of the person I’m discussing. Unfortunately just seeing Dawkin’s name is bringing figurative bile to the back of my throat. For this reason I can’t stomach a picture.

I’ve very little time or interest for Richard Dawkins.  Whilst I don’t have a faith myself, I have a great respect for those that do and will support peoples right to have a faith completely.

Dawkins, for a man that claims not to have a faith, seems to have built himself quite a career on God (or his claimed absence of)

Normally I’d not give Dawkins time on my blog, he fits into a category of non-entity in my world and the reason is because unlike intelligent reasonable people who don’t have a faith, Dawkins seems to have a great skill in upsetting people and an inability to present his views without causing offence.  It’s silly, its childish and its not clever.

Anyone can upset people on social media if they so desire; the decent, intelligent people are the ones able to stimulate a debate that doesn’t alienate or offend anyone.

Freedom of speech! I hear you cry.  And yes there is freedom of speech, but in that comes responsibility.  Do you walk down the street not caring who you offend? Or is it that some people start to feel brave when they are behind a computer screen and think that upsetting people is ok?  Well it’s not ok.  Just like you or I wouldn’t run through a churchyard having a loud argument about sport whilst a funeral was in progress, we have boundaries.  Boundaries which apparently don’t apply to some cowards online.

Dawkins views could easily be presented without the offence and before you say this is a form of censorship, I think the reverse.  I think a respectful presentation of the same views would mean it would create a more inclusive debate, rather than people being offended and turning off.

I digress, I’ve allowed Dawkins an article on my site because of a rather strange #tag appearing on Twitter.  The tag was believed to have started on Thursday evening, with a #RIPricharddawkins and seems to be announcing his passing away. The purpose of this is unknown.

Richard Dawkins, the prominent atheist, misogynist and biologist, is not dead. But Weird Twitter, a dark, secret, absurd pocket of the Internet is having a great time saying he is. Mediaite’s Tina Nguyen speculates that the hashtag began around midnight last night with this bizarre tweet….


So why are people doing this?  Is Dawkins being ridiculed by a growing number of people on social media? It will be interesting to see if we get an answer.

From his Twitter profile:

Treats all religions with good-humoured ridicule.

Which in my view is incorrect. I certainly don’t find it good humoured or funny and I don’t even have a faith. His followers lap it up though and Dawkins does love to RT.  If you worship hard enough to the “almighty” Dawkins he might re-tweet you.  Step up and offer your praise to him.  The crawling around him his followers engage in, is nearly as sickening as the way he approaches his topics.

Its people like Dawkins who have me staying away from the title of “atheist” lest I be associated with his type of “intellectual” debate (and I use those words loosely)

Ironically Dawkin’s should be praising God.  He’s made a name for himself on the back of religion.