Jacqueline Maley's editorial, "Atheism's true believers gather", published in The Sydney Morning Herald is one of the most disingenuous, inaccurate portrayals of atheists--replete with some of the most outlandish faulty logic arguments I have ever encountered--and an outright utter screed of tripe. In predictable fashion for any faithful toady, Maley piles on the demagoguery of fear in a world without religion, sated with everything from "social darwinism" to atheists are "fundamentalists". I winced in intellectual pain as I read her deluded diatribe against atheists (particularly the inane barbs hurled at Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens), quickly realizing her unreserved prejudice for religion, and her absolute ignorance to even the basic understanding of the term "atheist."
the tendentious Maley draws no quarter for the preeminent scientist, Richard
Dawkins, labeling him with the snarky and absurd title of the "movement's
supreme deity," fellow Australian, author and philosopher Russell Blackford,
also an outspoken critic of religion, is oddly spared the invective of Maley's bile.
Conceivably, in an act of kindred loyalty--and the only deed of beneficence
found among her prejudicial rant, Maley allows Blackford to escape tainted
commentary. Ergo, writes Maley on Blackford, "A lot of people who don't believe
have got fed up with the political role of religion."
However, "civil libertarian, liberals and gay rights activists," are all part and parcel, at least in Maley's demented mind and spurious ramblings, to the "loose global coalition" of the "new age of activist atheism." Yes, you deduced it correctly--it is self-evident to the fatuous Jacqueline Maley that all atheists are secretly a conspiracy of liberals, gays, and other equally fetid political partisans, to rid the world of religion. After such a fallacious, bigoted set of accusations, aimed chiefly at those who advocate for equality, liberty, and church-state separation issues, is there any wonder left to what is truly wrong with religion and its truculent courtiers?
Finally, as an ethologist and evolutionary biologist, I ask of Jacqueline Maley, since he (Richard Dawkins) cannot "disprove the existence of God," should Dawkins also be pressed on the evidence of disproving the non-existence of unicorns? And if he fails, as disproving a negative is impossible--and the burden of proof always falls to the person making the extraordinary claim; therefore, under Maley's burden of proof, syllogism of logic, Dawkins should simply renounce all of his estimable work and pronounce Biology as a science, a total, abject failure. (Hence, the sacred atheist ritual of burning heretical books, such as Darwin's, On The Origin of Species, would naturally commence immediately after the burnt offering at the altar of reason.)