Knowing your ability to obfuscate, Dan S de Merengue, I simply have to ask the obvious questions.

What do you characterise as "the Christian revelation of God" that you suggest "rile[d] Dawkins on Q&A the other night"

Here's the transcript - just copy and paste the relevant part

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2831712.htm

Take your time.

I’ve already read the transcript and reprinted the relevant portion earlier (see above).

Dawkins speaks of God, the all powerful creator coming to earth [in the person of Jesus] and suffering an ignominious death. This was acknowledged as the means for forgiveness of sins and the bringing of atonement to humanity.

The death of Jesus and his rising to life again is a core element of Christianity, is celebrated at Easter, and is the central focus of New Testament teaching.

It was to this that Dawkins seemed to take objection.

Dan S de Merengue: << The death of Jesus and his rising to life again is a core element of Christianity, is celebrated at Easter, and is the central focus of New Testament teaching. >>

As I imagine Dawkins does, I regard the literal resurrection of Jesus to be a myth, but it doesn't "rile" me in the least. However, it's certainly one of the reasons I'm not a Christian.

I guess that makes me "strident" too.

I’d have to agree.

The resurrection myth doesn’t “rile” me either, but it certainly does amaze me that it never occurs to Christians that the story isn’t even really one of sacrifice.

It’s like I’ve said on another thread, if I had the choice of being tortured, crucified, suffering Hell for three days, rising then getting to be God for an eternity, I’m gonna choose that.

Not really a sacrifice when you put it into context now, is it?

Stridently yours,

QUOTE
... could I ask for your opinion on Daniel Scott? ...he told me about the persecution he suffered for his faith at the hands of Muslims in Pakistan. ...
UNQUOTE

Based on the demonstrably false statements about Islam and Muslims that Daniel Scott engages in with his parishioners i would not trust a word he said.

And by the way such incitement to hatred is felt in the Muslim community in the form of threats, spitting and violence...a message that can be equally be directed to fundamentalist Atheists.

One of the things that always impresses me is the contrast in manners between Muslims and the Christians you have referred to. I have yet to come across a grouping of Muslims, large or small, who speak in the manner of these Christians. It is as if they have so little faith in their own doctrine that they need to prove themselves by vilifying others.

Muslims follow the following advice

(109) “Quite a number of the People of the Book wish they could turn you (people) back to infidelity after ye have believed, from selfish envy, after Truth hath become manifest unto them; but forgive and overlook, till Allah hath power over all things.

(110) And be steadfast in prayer and regular in charity: and whatever good ye send forth for your souls before you, ye shall find it with Allah, for Allah sees well all that ye do.

(111) And they say: “None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian.” Those are their (vain) desires. Say “Produce your proof if ye are truthful.”

(112) Nay, -whoever submits his whole self to Allah is a doer of good, -he will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” (Qu’ran, 2:109-112)

AND

“And abuse not those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest exceeding the limits, they abuse Allah through ignorance. Thus to every people have We made their deeds fair-seeming; then to their Lord is their return so he will inform them of what they did” (Qu’ran, 6:109)

Oh, that, Dan S de Merengue.

Let's try this again, now that we know what you are talking about

>>If the varying concepts associated with God are much of a muchness to atheists, then why did the Christian revelation of God rile Dawkins on Q&A the other night?<<

It was not "the Christian revelation of God" that annoyed Dawkins, but the notion put forward that while the Old Testament was a bit iffy in places, the New Testament was, somehow... nicer.

A member of the audience asked Senator Fielding:

"As a believer in God, do you accept the Bible as the word of God and those who participate in homosexual behavior ought to be shunned or be put to death as the Bible demands? Or do so called ‘moderate Christians' simply choose to ignore the word of God in this case, picking what passages they feel best suit our social trends of the day?"

Fielding huffed and puffed a bit until Julie Bishop came to the rescue.

"The new testament tells the story of a man who tried to do good things and who began this movement of Christianity that is still with us today. He must have been an outstanding person, let's face it. But the beautify of the psalms, the message behind the parables, doesn't mean that you have to be absolutely wedded to each word. It means that there were messages there that live through the ages and I don't have any difficulty with the New Testament at all in that regard."

Dawkins response - "riled", according to your view - was to point out that the "message" of the resurrection was equally barbaric as the stoning of women "taken in adultery", or whatever, in the OT.

>>It was to this that Dawkins seemed to take objection.<<

Not at all. He was simply pointing out the many inconsistencies that are an everyday, essential part of being a Christian.

>>You say I scrape the bottom of the creationists’ barrel of arguments. Does that suggest that creationists have better arguments than that which I’ve used?<<

If you say so.