The illogic of Atheism

Are you talking about Chris?

Regardless, no one would be able to attack my faith based beliefs because I'm not sure what they are myself.

I went through the whole thread. This thread is full of allegations. No one save member Chris provided any direct evidences. 
He wouldn't attack you personally he doesn't know you, but make no mistake he would not attack psi beliefs held in general. Remember he also attacked theists in the opinion piece. An old saying: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This man is not your friend.

I wondered that too. 

Mind you, as Steve referred to me and quoted Christopher Hitchens as "Chris" almost in the same breath, anything's possible.

He would attack all.

He would attack all.

Who would attack all what?

Woah there Steve.

The assertions were made by the author in the OP's link.  Linda is the one asking, over and over, for someone to help her understand the basis for the OP's commentary on Dawkins.  Let's not twist this into something it isn't.

A few of us gave examples (Linda's dismissal of the example I provided was purely based on her interpretation and not some objective, evidentially based "proof").  Linda keeps asking for more so the community finally resorted to suggesting she look into it herself if she's truly interested.

My "dismissal" was based on looking at the whole video to see what Dawkins was criticizing. My "interpretation" is my best attempt at understanding what Dawkins is trying to say, such that he would agree with my restatement. I'm not much interested in whether his words could also be tortured to support a hostile interpretation (hostile to New Atheism).

What I gather from the responses here is that Dawkins is not allowed to call a spade a spade. If someone makes a ridiculous claim he can't say that it's foolish, else he is unreasonable. This standard does not apply to those who are regarded as 'in group'.

Linda

What I gather from the responses here is that Dawkins is not allowed to call a spade a spade. If someone makes a ridiculous claim he can't say that it's foolish, else he is unreasonable. This standard does not apply to those who are regarded as 'in group'.

I don't think it could be much clearer that your only interest here is in trying to provoke arguments and disrupt discussions.

Who would attack all what?

The author of the article. To reiterate. Everyone is happy because he's pounding atheism. He also pounding theists to a smaller degree. Be aware he would also pound all things psi.

Dante, I have been looking for myself. I haven't been finding what you are describing. You say that videos and articles showing his bad character are readily available, yet those that I find do not show this. That's why I'm asking for your help. Either you are looking at different articles/videos from me, or we are looking at the same ones but drawing different conclusions. Either way, it would help to know what you are looking at.

I find video a tediously slow way to obtain information. If the way he conducts himself in a video is relevant though, watching it is useful.

It may well be that we are looking at the same ones and drawing different conclusions.

In any event, I don't intend to go searching for this right now. Frankly it matters not to me whether or not you buy into what has been said of Dawkins here - again, I do not have those videos or articles at hand. I'm really quite confident that the links Chris and Silence have shared paint a reasonably clear picture of what we're talking about. If more digging is needed, if it's an issue you consider worth pursuing, go for it.

Since you say Linda will finded it without trouble why is it too much trouble for you?
I'm not defending Dawkins, Hitchens or anyone. But so what if he's vocal? The point is if anyone makes or insinuates an assertion like you have than it's up to you to provide direct evidences which none have save Chris - maybe. If not, than you're just blowing smoke. In the words of Chris: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

I think you've misunderstood me. I am entirely in line with the notion that one making a claim ought to generally support it with evidence - but as Chris pointed out, Dawkins came up incidental to the first post and Linda inquired about it. 

I'm not blowing anything. I've stated this before, and perhaps it fell on deaf ears, but this seems to me to be an exercise in argument for the sake of argument. We aren't debating a thing that is very controversial right now. This is not psi. This is not skepticism. It's personal interpretations of the way Richard Dawkins generally comes off. There's no objective evidence for that - it's subjective. It inherently requires people to draw their own conclusions based on how they feel, reasonably, when they listen to or read Dawkins. 1000 articles and videos could be shared which many would say clearly paint the picture of a conceited and derogatory Dawkins, and Linda could 1000 times say that those videos and articles just don't reflect that to her. 

You're acting as if there's some objective evidence to be had here that will allow one side to prevail over the other - and that just isn't the case here.

The author of the article. To reiterate. Everyone is happy because he's pounding atheism. He also pounding theists to a smaller degree. Be aware he would also pound all things psi.

The main post was about atheism. It does not matter at all what his thoughts on psi are - those don't make his points about atheism any more or less valid

The main post was about atheism. It does not matter at all what his thoughts on psi are - those don't make his points about atheism any more or less valid

Let me also point out his entire diatribe is one assertion after another. Why should you or anyone stand with him or against him? How do you know his points are valid or not valid? You don't. You and every member like his points simply because you don't like atheism, atheists and what it all stands for a materialistic mechanistic it all happen by chance non spiritual view of reality more or less ( meaning members have various degrees how much tolerance they prefer for that perspective). That is an assertion. Is this a correct observation or not? You tell me.
Just so you aren't confused in thinking I support Dawkins, Hitchens and whatnot I don't. Frankly, I'm not all that interested in what they say or said.