Why do so many Christians like saying Richard Dawkins "seems angry" ...?

Question

I haven't once seen him lose his temper in public or act "angry" in any way. Yes, he makes his points forcefully, but he isn't angry or vitriolic in the way that a Pat Robertson or a (formerly) Ted Haggard have been talking about gays or atheists.

I think the Christians just HATE it that some prominent atheist is willing (finally!) to speak up and say their Sky Fairy has no clothes.

cheryl: haven't you devoted your life to condemning the beliefs of all non-christians!?

Answer 1

It's as though they've all decided that "he's angry" is going to be the story they tell, and they all fall right in line. I can't say I've ever seen any sign of unusual anger in him either.

Answer 2

Fundies have been convinced that all atheists are angry and full of hate towards theists ONLY cos we don't share in their delusion.
It's the ONLY way they can come to terms with our disagreement with their beliefs in Invisible Sky Critters (ISCs).
"ONLY a person who is angry at their specific breed of ISC could possibly say they don't believe in him."
"Only a person who chooses Evil would resent the Love of the ISC."
AND similar types of drivel - they can't understand we know there are no such things as ISCs - the whole concept of ISCs is ludicrous.

[edit]
I always make my comment and THEN read the other comments.

Booth assures us that Dinesh D'Souza understands atheists better than they understand themselves.
I think THAT is the height of arrogance.
Is it any wonder why we become frustrated with their ignorance?

I can assure you I didn't 'become' an atheist by choice, per se.
It was a logical conclusion after finding NO evidence that ISCs of any strain or breed were any more than myths promulgated by the powerful to enable control over the peasants.
.

Answer 3

They want to confirm their belief that atheists are miserable and existential, lacking in positive qualities that theists supposedly have a monopoly over.

But it seems to me that the most vitriolic of preachers are a few noodles short of a casserole. They tend to get angry at anything that is perceived as contrary to their faith.

Besides, the emotions behind an argument do not alter the quality of an argument. Dawkins realizes this fact, and his assertions have a rational basis.

Answer 4

Not only angry but somewhat belligerent, a bit out of touch with reality. Honestly, the guy needs to just sit down and wait for the med nurse. Either that or spend a little time chilling in the leather restraints.

Answer 5

I think they confuse "anger" with "snarkiness" or "assertiveness" or "bluntness" or "frustration".

I've seen him snarky, and assertive, and blunt, and frustrated, but never "ANGRY".

In any case, it's a CLASSIC ad hom attack. It basically goes "Look at this guy... so angry! How can we trust anything that he says when he's obviously such an angry, angry person. Angry people say things out of anger and don't think clearly, thus we can safely consider everything that ever comes out of his mouth to be invalid or irrelevant since he's just so darned angry".

Attack the speaker, not the argument. CLASSIC ad hom.

Answer 6

it relatively isn't hypocritical. permit me spell issues out for you in small words. a million) psychological integrity applies in an tutorial context. An occasion of violating psychological integrity could be publishing something that somebody else wrote and claiming it as your own. Hypocrisy could be going to church and telling his pals he believes in God, even with each and every thing written in his e book. Neither has exceeded off here. 2) No, what he pronounced grew to become into that believing issues with out requiring information grew to become into risky to us all. "genuine Christians" fall under that. "Cultural Christians" do no longer. 3) could you refuse to tell your Jewish buddy "chuffed Hanukkah"? i wish no longer, even even with the undeniable fact which you do no longer have fun Hanukkah. think of roughly why. 4) See #2 5) See #2

Answer 7

I saw him act pretty angry in the film "Root of All Evil?" when he spoke with the man who was once Jewish but is now Muslim. That guy was saying some pretty crappy things to Mr. Dawkins and he sure lost his temper a little bit.

Otherwise I can't recall a time when I saw him seem angry, though.

Answer 8

Actually, he does seem angry. Especially when an interviewer won't let him get a word in edgewise.
Look up the Bill Oreilly interview for a fine example. Bill, being SO terrified of anything that might shake his narrow world view, literally had to shout Mr. Dawkins down a few times. Richard, of course, looked perturbed (I guess he thought it was going to be a REAL interview with back-and-forth discussions) and who could blame him?

Answer 9

for religious people, their religion is like a part of them. So when someone tries to makes points against it, they see it as a personal attack. So, they respond with personal attacks. In this case, they call dawkins angry instead of refuting his ideas. It's all childish nonsense with these people.

Answer 10

"I think ANYONE (believer or not) who devotes their life to condeming the beliefs of others is an angry person that has something missing in their life."

Well I think anyone who seeks to spread the truth to the ignorant, misinformed and uneducated has far more substance in their life than those that don't.