Madeleine, you seem to be already a brilliant writer and thinker! It goes to show that wisdom is not an exclusive of old age. Going deeper into both science and the "God or no God question" can never hurt us as individuals and as society. Your article sets a good example of that "intelligent debate" you propose us to have.

Dawkins does exist though.

It is easy to understand why Dawkins would not want to debate a Creationist. It would be the usual ciruclar illogical arguments. Why go round and round in the same pointless circle?

Dawkins does not represent atheism. He is not the leader of the Atheists, there is no such beast. That is a mistake some in the religious camps keep perpetuating. Atheism is a non-belief in a supernatural deity that is all. Any one person who declares themselves to be an atheist does not speak for all atheists. Those who hold more extreme views such as banning religion also do not represent atheism. Atheists like theists can also be secularists.

People are more than just their religion. Identity around religious beliefs or non-beliefs is overrated unless one lives in one of those restricted compounds in the Mid-West. Most people are just living normal lives as best they can while trying at best to uphold their own values and behaviours in how they relate to others. The true test of any person is his/her behaviour and how they treat others not what they say they believe in, theist and non-theist alike.

Negative media around Dawkins only adds to the perception of religious groupthink reactions as overplayed and verging on hysterical. (Not this particular author I would add who has approached the issue with less histrionics than some).

Why do theists see atheism as a threat? Religion appears to add something to many people's lives, I don't see this would change in a growing seclular world.

Never paid that much attention to Dicky Dawkins anyway - I'm more of a fan of Hitchens.

Apologies for my typos and lack of editing in the previous post.

Acolyte, yes Hitchens is far less acerbic in his approach.

Good effort young person. You're certainly on to one of the more interesting topics doing the rounds today.

The topic isn't atheism so much as it is Dawkins. The need for atheists like Dawkins to preach is one of the outstanding paradoxes of the whole argument. They are actually taking on the role of new religious leaders promising to free man from the chains of old beliefs, just the way religious leaders did in the past. Yet all they offer is a new belief system where man, a notably imperfect creature, is the beginning and end of all things which , in the end is a fairly miserable outcome. It is no co-incidence that harsh totalitarian regimes are essentially atheist regimes where the leader is the new God.

Oddly, atheists don't say God doesn't exist, they say God 'probably' doesn't exist. Its a strange each way bet as if they are leaving themselves an escape clause.

A nicely written article for a sixteen year old--I wonder if mum and dad helped with the editing, which would be fair enough--but I think in the interests of transparency the author ought to declare her own position. I can only infer she's a defender of a faith?

Personally, I'm not so much critical of what Dawkins is against--theism or the idea of intelligent design--as what he seems unwittingly for. Terry Eagleton very reasonably tagged Dawkins a liberal rationalist for his unspoken, yet uncritical, support for libertarianism.
Indeed I'm critical of all debates, whether between theism and atheism or identity polemics, that take the "context" for granted. I would have more respect for Dawkins if he was taking the institution of neoliberalism to task for instance, and the manifold evils it propagates and exacerbates. Or perhaps as a scientist he might highlight the fact that cutting carbon emissions via the wasteful and clumsy mechanism of free markets is delusional; that innovation and economic growth can only exacerbate carbon emissions. It's difficult for me to "rationalise" the silence of vocal liberal rationalists on this issue as other than their vested interest in the funding provided "by" new markets.
Of course if Dawkins was to come out and say he's pushing atheism because it's one of the pillars that supports conservative hegemony, and that by knocking it down we can gradually re-engineer a doomed system, I'd support him. But he's seemingly intent only on rationalising society for the sake of it, indeed institutionalising rationalism. He has no political agenda at all--which means he's politically conservative! For me that's bad enough, but his atheism is also near as credulous as theism in its "empirical faith" in the "known" universe: that is that that's all there is to it.
Perhaps material reality is all there is to it, but I don't think our liberal rationalists should be complacently declaring "case closed" based on such limited perspective, or the arrogance that's by-product of the kudos Dawkins and co enjoy.
My atheism is based on scepticism--which I also direct at myself and my culture--rather than conviction.