Liberals in Australia are basically culturally conservatives and fiscal liberal.

It ties in where I say "This lumping of various policies and directives into one encompassing category"; it's the inverse effects of the argument at play.

I've got a brother-in-law who has used this argument often. We live in Australia, and unless you've been paying attention to the politics of refugees, immigrants and asylum in this country, this won't make much sense.

About 10 years ago, the Liberal Party (conservatives, ironically) put in place a policy (sending boat refugees to off-shore handling places to demotivate people to choose this route) and a directive (the navy to make sure boats never reached Australian shores, often by towing them out of Australian waters). Immigration by boat hence dropped dramatically, but the reason for that dropped was put on the introduction of the policy, treating the policy and the directive as the same category of "policy."

This lumping of various policies and directives into one encompassing category has had the unfortunate effect of showing all Australians that "the policy" was successful in demotivating people to hop into boats, when the reality was very, very different (and we don't know how many boats have sunk and how many people have died from this outside of Australian waters because of this; the Australian navy don't report on what happens outside their areas).

OK, so they exist.

No, it's much more persuasive than that. All you have to do is to go to his website, to the "convert's corner" and start reading the letters from people who have done exactly that; converted because of his book. Convert's Corner

I also know both Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens mentions the tons of letters they receive thanking them for opening their eyes. These books are doing a lot more for changing people's mind than you let on.

Yes, interesting point of view. I do remember in my earlier days of reading stuff that at the time was emotional in some way, but now, having re-read it many years later and with (hopefully) more science-based knowledge on-board, seems benign. What was all that fuzz about, really? And really, I think the fuzz was the sound of preconceived and poorly thought-out ideas in my head shredded.

I think the outrage and negativity attached to criticism can be measure in how much you treasure those beliefs. Now that I don't hold many beliefs at all (I think I can boil them down to some scientific workflow platform), there's less for me to get upset about. We humans put a strange personal identity on mere ideas, and a critique of ideas are far too often thought of as a critique of the person who holds those beliefs, probably linked to our sense of self.

I think Dawkins and Hitchins (and people like them) have a short way of dealing with stuff that has had a tradition of being dealt with in longer terms. This abrupt and concise way of dealing with issues can have a shocking effect. Sometimes the shock is awakening, other times it can be painful, hurtful and offensive. It comes down to how well we deal with shocks of revelation about our own mind, and many, many people don't like to face the ugly truth about themselves (which is also why we love herd thinking and the removal of the personal responsibility of our thinking and actions, even when we claim not to do 'like everybody else.'. Oh yes, you do. :) )

I doubt very much he used the word 'stupid' to label religious people. He has said, though; "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is either ignorant, stupid, or insane.”

And of course, people will take from that what they want. "I'm religious, I'm not insane nor am I ignorant, so he must be calling me stupid!"

Another one is his opening to the God Delusion where he lists a long list of characteristics of the christian god. People have of course taken issues with that list, however you can find bible references for every single one of those characteristics, words you'll even hear in church, so again it's mostly being taken negatively by people who want it to be negative.

But if you have something concrete, do tell. It's a puzzle I've long wanted to solve.

I think he could have presented the same facts (and even the same opinions) more effectively without all the venom against religious people and sense of superiority

I don't actually understand this bit. I've heard the argument being made many times, yet no one seems to be able to pinpoint what they mean by it.

Here's a recent example I can think of. Richard Dawkins said a little while ago that early bible writers were ignorant of certain facts we now take for granted. People reacted to the "ignorant" bit, to which Dawkins asked "Do you know what the word ignorant means?" This is a fair question; do you know what the word mean, or are you reacting because your knowledge is lacking? I often find that people are fuming more over clear writing than over fuzzy language, even if there is no real venom or sarcasm or superiority within. (I could go into a tirade about people getting offended at mere words, and whether people generally fully, truly understand what it means to be offended, again with pointers to the identity comments at the top of this post!)

I can discuss with people - say the change of musical styles from the renaissance to the baroque in early Italian music (and the early influence on German music through Schuts) - and rightfully and without any venom say that most people are ignorant of the issue. It's not an insult, it's a word describing a lack of knowledge on something (knowledge I'm not proud of, btw, as my geekery is a negative liability in society ... more on this one later). I am myself terribly ignorant on a number of issues and subjects, and have no problem admitting so; I use the word for what it means. Yet people think it means a negative when it really is neutral. (Same problem with liability, btw. Something can be a liability to you, but there's positive and negative liability, and we often just say "liability" and draw a negative over anything we say by being less precise)

I think Dawkins attempt to be precise is often misinterpreted as having some negative connotation they read into it. (Hitchens is another chapter all-together, of course) I think, in general, that people should strive to be less wrong in their own reaction to the world. Things would quickly be a far gentler place.