Richard Dawkins is a gratuitously unpleasant man

Insulting people does not advance the atheist cause. Con did not refute this, and so I assume he accepts it as true.Dawkins believes in atheismIndeed he does. I concede that it is not atheism's fault that he is such a gratuitously unpleasant man. I think the opposite - that if he were more devoted to atheism and open-mindedness he would be more tolerant and curious about those with other belief systems and, instead of blindly abusing them, he would be able to engage in constructive conversation.For example, compare Dawkins' intolerance with the words of Peter Higgs, theoretical physicist:"The growth of our understanding of the world through science weakens some of the motivation which makes people believers. But that's not the same thing as saying they're incompatible...Anybody who is a convinced but not a dogmatic believer can continue to hold his belief... ...I don't happen to be [a religious believer] myself, but maybe that's just more a matter of my family background than that there's any fundamental difficulty about reconciling the two." (1) Not only is Higgs the far superior scientist, but how much saner and more humane he is!The rude things Dawkins says are trueCon says that Caroline Sparks' family is stupid, and this justifies Dawkins' comments.The man across the road is kind of weedy and has no sex appeal. Should I tell him that the next time he stops to say hello? No. I shouldn't say those mean things, even though they're true, because they are gratuitously unpleasant. There is no benefit to mean comments like that.Even if Caroline Sparks' family are stupid, what benefit is there in pointing it out? If Dawkins wants to advocate for the reform of gun regulations in the US, why, that would be lovely. If he wants to contribute funds for the education of new mothers in house safety, again, how worthy and kind. But he is doing nothing like that. Caroline Sparks' family cannot help being stupid (if they are), and anyway it's too late for them to change their behavior to protect their little girl. Dawkins' comments were gratuitous and cruel.Dawkins' followers don't think he's unpleasantDawkins is like a schoolyard bully, surrounded by his cronies. They find some young kid and Dawkins torments him in various ways. The victim is only one person. But there are seven bullies, in addition to Dawkins, who are thoroughly enjoying themselves. Therefore, according to Con, the net happiness of the bullying is entirely positive! Further, the victim's negative opinion is subjective! There were eight people who observed Dawkins' behavior, and seven of them approved and admired him! How can anyone say that Dawkins is unpleasant?"Bullying involves an initial desire to hurt, this desire is expressed in action, someone is hurt, the action is directed by a more powerful person or group, it is without justification, it is typically repeated, and it is done so with evident enjoyment." (2)Bullying is subjective(3). Cruelty is subjective. Unpleasantness is subjective too. This doesn't mean it doesn't occur or that it isn't powerful. It just makes it slightly more problematic to prove. The old testament is bad and scary; Dawkins has his good momentsNot everything Dawkins says is aggressive and pointless. He has made some interesting arguments about religion and biology. To say that he is a gratuitously unpleasant man does not exclude the possibility of him being pleasant on occasion, or even of him saying something valuable. Also, he must spend several hours asleep every day and I'm sure he's unobjectionable during that time.When I echo Watson's statement I only mean that Dawkins is often unpleasant, that he is reliably unpleasant, and that his unpleasantness has no substantial benefit.Dawkins is not a feminist!Con claims that Dawkins is a feminist, that he is against misogyny and discrimination against women.Two years ago, Rebecca Watson, athiest, put a video on her blog talking about the conferences she'd been to. At the conference, she's been on a panel with Richard Dawkins, and she'd spoken about sexism in atheism and rape threats she'd received. Afterwards, a man from the audience tried to pick her up in the elevator. In her blog, she calmly said:"Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don’t do that. You know, I don’t really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and — don’t invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner." (4)Dawkins must have seen the post, because, on Pharyngula, the science blog, he wrote:"Dear Muslima Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and … yawn … don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with. Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so … And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin. Richard"(this post has since been removed, I believe, but it was reported widely at the time: 5,6)Women in Western countries have no right to complain about anything that makes them uncomfortable because there are women in other countries who suffer more, according to Dawkins. As Tracy Clark-Florey wrote, "that’s a crap rhetorical move meant to belittle and silence. It’s an argument that could be easily made against Dawkins’ own work: Why are you arguing over whether God exists while children are starving in Africa." (5)Then, there's the implication that all muslim women are victims of misogyny.So no, Dawkins is not a champion for women.SummaryDawkins isn't gratuitously unpleasant because he's an atheist. There are plenty of charming atheists about.He's unpleasant because he keeps making unpleasant comments. Those comments are gratuitous because they do not serve any positive purpose.If they served the atheist cause, they would not be gratuitous (even if you disagree with atheism). But they don't. (1) http://www.guardian.co.uk...(2) http://www.schoolangels.com.au...(3) http://www.mrbullyproof.com...(4) http://skepchick.org...(5) http://www.salon.com...(6) http://www.newstatesman.com...