'Islamophobe' Richard Dawkins Storms Out of Interview, Calls Muslim Journalist 'Pathetic' for Belief in Winged-Horse

"If you believe you're Napoleon or a poached egg, you're in an asylum. If you believe in winged horses you're a New Statesman journalist."

The following incident showcases just how inconsistent and devoid of intellectual honesty members of the Left actually are. Renown evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins is a favorite of the Left when he is bashing Christianity or any other religion. When he condemns Islam, however, he is an "Islamophobic" bigot. 

This time, Dawkins had the temerity to walk out of an interview with a Muslim journalist  after the journalist said that he believed that the prophet Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse. The 74-year-old author of "The God Delusion," told journalist Emad Ahmed of the New Statesmen that he was "pathetic" before cutting off the interview and storming out. 

Ahmed said that while he is aware of the scientist's views on Islam, he was stunned by Dawkins reaction.

"Dawkins is outspoken about religion, particularly Islam, so I was genuinely stunned when he decided to angrily walk away from our interview after I confirmed my beliefs in the revelations of the Islamic faith, calling my views "pathetic.'"

Dawkins defended his position on Twitter and further explained his version of the event. The following is a synopsis of those Twitter posts provided by the U.K. Express:

He said: "I left when he said Muhammad rode a winged horse. A non-timewasting journalist needs at least SOME grasp of reality."

He added: "Ridiculing belief in a winged horse is not "bigotry", not "Islamophobia", not "racism". It's sober, decent, gentle, scientific realism."

The 74-year-old went on: "If you believe you're Napoleon or a poached egg, you're in an asylum.

"If you believe in winged horses you're a New Statesman journalist."

He later explained in more detail: " I'm accused of refusing to be interviewed by Muslim journalists! Here's what actually happened.

"I was at a Royal Society meeting to launch the new Stephen Hawking Prize for Science Communication.

"The very nice PR woman arranged press interviews for the speakers. Science communication is dear to my heart, and I agreed to be pulled out of the conference for a series of interviews, on condition that the journalists would ask me about the Hawking Prize & STARMUS, not religion.

"One journalist, from New Statesman, soon made it clear that he wanted to talk of nothing but religion. My impatience grew, fed by my desire to rejoin the conference.

"I kept trying to drag him back to the agreed topic. Eventually, the PR woman arrived & signalled to the journalist that his time was up, but he asked to be allowed to carry on.

"He had just admitted that he believed in flying horses. In exasperation that I had left the conference to talk to a time-wasting journalist whose world view was ludicrously unconnected with reality, I terminated the interview and went off with the PR woman.

"I now find myself accused of refusing to be interviewed by Muslim journalists!"

Dawkins has been consistently vocal in condemning Islam. During a recent interview on a televised talk show the biologist, in reference to Islamic treatment of women, said Islam could "go to hell." 

Of course the usual left-wing outlets are decrying the atheist. The New Republic just posted an article with a headline indicating that Dawkins is "just as rude in person as he is on Twitter."

Surprisingly, even Salon's Scott Eric Kaufman noted the hypocrisy at play and wrote that "Richard Dawkins is being pilloried as an 'Islamophobe' for not wanting to discuss 'winged horses' with devout interviewer."

"If Dawkins had walked away from an interviewer who believed earthquakes were divine judgment and denied the validity of Charles Lyell’s life work, no one would complain," the Salon author had the honesty to write.

"Perhaps it's best to reserve "Islamophobe" for GOP politicians who speak fondly of turning sand into glass?"

We could not have ended with a better rhetorical question.