James Harmer

Richard Dawkins. The man responsible for finding the dumbest Christians out there and parading them around in the secular media to make all Christians look stupid. But… does this, Richard Dawkins actually exist? Shocking new evidence has convinced scientist Doctor Johadahrahdah TommyRott(PhD.) otherwise.
A photo of the alleged Dawkins(Real Scientists feel that this image was fabricated.)

One of his alleged writings(how do we know it’s the original copy anyway?) Important to note that three different translations are out there. I haven’t read them but I bet they say different stuff.
THE DAWKINS DELUSION
Acknowledgements

• David Anderson, for his article, “Does Richard Dawkins Exist”, which inspired the idea for this radio play. (http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/does-richard-dawkins-exist.html)
• The Ryan Tubridy Show; some of the arguments here are Dawkinianised versions of ones Richard Dawkins advanced against theism (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fnews/1727564/posts#comment)

• And Richard Dawkins, of course.

Richard: We’re privileged to have with us today Doctor Johadahrahdah Tommyrot who’s going to be talking to us about his latest book, “The Dawkins Delusion”. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Tommyrot, it’s a pleasure to speak to you again.
Tommyrot: Thank you, Richard, it’s good to be here.
Richard: Now, Doctor Tommyrot, you’re famous for declaring in no uncertain terms that you are not a believer in Richard Dawkins; you don’t think he really exists. Now why is that?
Tommyrot: Well, nothing’s so simple Richard. You shouldn’t ask sensible people to believe in something unless you’ve got evidence for it. If there is a Dawkins, why hasn’t he shown himself to me?
Richard: In your opinion, then, are people who believe in Richard Dawkins just a little bit dim?
Tommyrot: Well, in a way I can understand the mistake: simple people pick up a handful of books claiming to be written by Dawkins, and since a Dawkins seems to be a sufficient account for how they got to be there, for the similarities in all the texts, and so on – they stick with commonsense and fallaciously conclude that this Dawkins (which they have never seen with their own eyes) actually exists.
Richard: Of course, some people do claim to have seen Richard Dawkins, and even shaken his hand.
Tommyrot: Yes, if you can believe them.
Richard: You think they’re all lying?
Tommyrot: I didn’t say that. Of course, there’s no shortage of liars in the world, and undoubtedly some people who claim to have had these ‘Richard Dawkins experiences’ are deliberately telling fairy stories, but, you know, the human brain is a very, very complicated thing… and conjuring up an imaginary Dawkins would be child’s play for it. Christopher Robin had Binker. I had the slimy custard man. I suspect that something very similar is happening with people who claim to have seen a Richard Dawkins, or heard his voice, or felt his touch.
Richard: But the books aren’t evidence for the existence of Richard Dawkins either?
Tommyrot: No, of course not! As a scientist, it is no answer to the problem of ‘where did this inane rubbish come from?’ to stick a label on it that says, “Richard Dawkins”. Each book is a simple re-arrangement of only 26 letters. Even a child should be able to see that, with a little random shuffling of vowels and consonants on a computer, one can arrive at all sorts of patterns like that. Working out how each letter got into the place that it did is the business of science. Claiming
that Dawkins-did-it puts an end to an inquiry that promises to give us a full and satisfying explanation of how these books came to be, without the need for invoking a discredited Dawkins-of-the-gaps-type hypothesis. Read more