Richard Dawkins has decided to take on religions in all its forms in order to convince us that we would stand a better chance of eternal bliss if we gave up all belief in eternity entirely. However can we be certain that Richard Dawkins exists?

I am sad to say that in spite of years of science there are still many faith-heads who believe in Richard Dawkins.

“Have you ever actually seen Richard Dawkins?” by seeing, I don’t mean simply receiving light rays reflected off a person who claims or is claimed to be Richard Dawkins, but by applying proper scientific tests using control data and well established, publicised criteria to determine if the person you hypothesis to be Richard Dawkins is indeed Richard Dawkins.

Has any peer reviewed paper ever been written on the existence of Richard Dawkins!?

Some argue that one can be certain that he exists because he has revealed himself in "The God Delusion", “The Blind Watchmaker” and other popular books attributed to him. I understand the mistake and any primary school child could be forgiven for making it. When you observe such works of literature one is tempted to assume that intelligence is required to create them. We now know that’s impossible. We cannot avoid at times using words like ‘author’ and ‘writer’ when considering the origin of the "God Delusion" but we scientists know that’s not how things really are. We use such words for the same reason we speak of the sun rising or falling to describe the rotation of the earth or when we say ‘what goes up must come down’, to explain gravity.

Look closely at, say the "God Delusion" and you will soon come to realise the book is nothing more than an arrangement of the 26 letters of the alphabet. Science may not yet fully understand how those 26 letters came about but let us not foolishly and unscientifically resort to a lot of superstitious nonsense like the existence of Richard Dawkins. To ascribe such things to the ‘Richard Dawkins of the Gaps’ robs science of the satisfaction of gaining a fuller, more intellectually stimulating, explanation for the origin of books.

We now know that once you have those 26 letters you have the basis for all literature. Science also tells us with overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that given enough time and plenty of positive random shuffles under the mindless yet powerfully directive influence of natural selection, which always chooses meaningful arrangements over meaningless ones, you cannot help but arrive at the "God Delusion".

Now I know that some people in the past have claimed to have seen and even spoken to Richard Dawkins. Many of course may be lying, lots of people tell lies to make money or gain influence over others and to frighten them with a lots of silly superstitions. The mind is enormously complex and without a good solid scientific basis totally devoid of blind faith to determine truth from delusion we are capable of believing anything. If you are convinced that Richard Dawkins exists it is possible that you might imagine you have seen him, not because he really exists but because, in your inability to cope with the world the way it really is, you need him to exist.

One of the most convincing arguments that the "God Delusion" could never have been written by a Richard Dawkins is that it’s full of what we scientist call “Junk Sentences”. These are letters that are arranged into words that look reasonable enough until we try to understand the purpose of the sentences these words form. What we discover here are dead ends or vestiges left over in the evolutionary process that has brought "The God delusion" to this present stage of random and undirected development. No intelligent publisher would ever accept a book so badly written.

After all why couldn't another author have written the book? Brits believe in their Richard Dawkins because that’s what their parents believed but as an Australian you might have been taught to believe in say Richard Dawkins of 10 Smith St. Dubbo or you may even attribute it to a local superstition like the Philip Adams cult.

Can I suggest that you read my latest book “The Dawkins Delusion” in which I clearly set out, without apology or concern for the sensitivities of any well meaning but naïve Dawkins followers to oppose belief in Dawkins whenever and wherever it may be found. It is my hope that any person who is a Dawk when he opens my book with be an Adawk when he closes it.

Lets face it if Richard Dawkins wants me to believe in him he should show himself !

(With thanks for some of the ideas and the inspiration: The Dawkins Delusion by docspock7 on youtube)