Richard Dawkins

"Some ideas are stupid" - it's nice to know he can acknowledge his own shortcomings.

And yours

Which of his ideas are you specifically referring to? ... and please do provide proof other than a collection of yarns spun by middle eastern mystics who wandered around an area the size of Rhode Island and couldn't seem to find "the promised land" for 80 years because their god was too interested in foreskins and menstrual blood.

Dude, I'm not Christian, Jewish or Muslim, so don't even try to start something you can't finish.

Bring it.

Alright. To insinuate that I believe in a middle eastern mystic, "who wandered around an area the size of Rhode Island and couldn't seem to find "the promised land" for 80 years because their god was too interested in foreskins and menstrual blood." shows that for someone using the moniker of "I-know-what-im-talking-about", you really know quite little. Now my original comment -posted weeks ago- was polite. You don't have to agree with me, and I certainly didn't expect you to respect it any more than Attenborough repects viewers that have caught him fudging the histrionic statements he frequently makes. But I would hope an intelligent person would refrain from assuming I hold religious notions which I don't. That was a tacky statement, and it reeks of desperation.

So ... nothing brought ... sigh ... oh, well.
Bear in mind that I’ve made no assumptions about your personal beliefs by simply asking you to NOT use The Goatherders Guide to the Universe (aka the Bible) as proof. I simply asked “Which of his ideas are you specifically referring to?” but I’ve received no answer other than a challenge from you to avoid trying “to start something you can’t finish.”

So again, bring it. Bring the specific shortcomings of his ideas that are stupid.

And I really do know what I’m talking about.

You did not simply ask, you were presumptuous. I don't expect an apology, of course, that might entail you employing good manners But since you can't be content until you get your bait bitten, here's those "ideas" you felt just must be talked about: first, his claim about the declining population of the walrus population (which was disproved by the U.S. Game and Wildlife Administration ). Then there were his allusions that the world would be better off if starving tribes in Africa were allowed to perish. There, there are the things I was thinking about when I made my original comment. But please don't lick your lips in anticipation of any more discussion; I've already seen the presumptive nature of your debate
tactics.

Yawn ... a “claim” you say was proven wrong by the very agency that affirmed it (google is your friend) and an opinion you didn’t like.
https://www.usgs.gov/news/research-shows-historic-decline-pacific-walrus-population

Keep trying. It’s amusing me and I’m bored at the moment.