Criticising Richard Dawkins’ alleged arrogance

By denying his arrogance - which even he doesn’t deny - you reveal yourself to be of the “idol” mentality. Instead of defending your opinions on your own, you feel the need to deny the obvious flaws of your idol. It would serve your arguments well to fairly grant the flaws of your idol, and defend your position on the merits alone.

Does it really matter? What about the substance of the argument?

The fallacies, the logically fallacious ad hominem abusive arguments? I don’t call that substance.

Does God exist?

To quote Dawkins, God is not disprovable. One thing we agree on.

Do intelligent beings exist elsewhere in our Galaxy and if so, do they
resemble the kind of bipedal humanoid fellows you see on Star Trek with subtly
differentiated head makeup just to indicate that that they aren’t quite like us?

Dawkins states that they do most likely exist, and they are much more intelligent than us. He says this without an ounce of empirical evidence.

If God did appear on a UK chatshow, say the Johnathan Ross show, he might possibly be subjected to some irreverent teasing about the size of his manhood

Whaaa? I thought size didn’t matter.

Richard Dawkins is covering sensitive ground by challenging the deeply held beliefs of often deeply indoctrinated and thought proof individuals.

As do many other atheists like Bertrand Russell, without appearing arrogant.

He’s sure to appear arrogant and upset somebody along the way.

Logic, please? Seriously, your logic is horrible. Offensive, even. Sensitive ground, therefore arrogant? Is that a joke?

Dawkins is arrogant. He refers to himself as elite, and he calls names left and right, and his ad hominem abusive fallacious arguments can hardly be characterized as “the best”. His logic is extremely poor due to his taking for granted points that have not been granted, and which are strenuously debated.

And Dawkins is not even vaguely associated with reason, except in a hostile relationship. His demonizing of the opposition, for example, is offensive to reason, i.e., logic. So much so that it is categorized as a formal fallacy by the name of ad hominem abusive.

Analytical thinkers are offended by ad hominem abusive arguments because they attempt to bypass logical debate and simply discredit the source. Reason dictates that 2+2 will equal four no matter how greedy or pernicious the proponent is.

And to decisively disprove your proposition that arrogance is an intrinsic part of atheism, I would offer you Bertrand Russell. He’s 100 times more articulate than Dawkins, a thousands times more intelligent, and a much more powerful proponent of atheism. And he accomplishes it without even a hint of arrogance.

Reason is superior to superstition.

Reason, owned and operated by Agnosticism, is also superior to atheistic emotive reasoning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

atheists responding to the charge that they are arrogant.

Atheism has nothing to do with arrogance. Bertrand Russell was a fine atheist and he was nothing close to arrogant. If an atheist is arrogant, it is a personality disorder that has nothing to do with atheism.

your knee jerk position

So far on this blog, your arguments have not been logical. In fact most of them employ transparent logical fallacies. That, coupled with your insults, is textbook definition of knee jerk.

Proclaiming one’s own self worth is a healthy exercise in my opinion. Low self esteem is probably one of the most crippling disorders a human could have.

The problem is not in proclaiming one’s own self esteem, it’s in dishonestly and intolerantly characterizing those with different viewpoints as idiots. It’s exactly that ridicule that is a disservice to intellectual discourse, and a catalyst of intolerance.