Another apologist with his "clever" questions

[Jesster]

Insulting someone isn't necessarily doing that. You can insult someone as a conclusion of your argument against them without using that fallacy ("you are wrong, and therefore you are a big bully"). If you use the insult as a method of attacking their ideas, then yes, it is an ad hominem.

I'm not entirely sure if Dawkins has made that fallacy or not, but the way you worded it didn't make it sound that way.

Well, he generally begins with "YHWH was a big bully. He commanded the deaths of blah blah and the destruction of blah blah."

That sounds like a "he did x so he is y" statement to me. It still works if you use the descriptor first and the explanation second. This is still addressing why he is a wrong instead of using "he is a big bully" as the argument itself.

If you can find an exact quote, I might be convinced to agree with you (because I honestly do not know). So far this isn't an ad hominem though.

Anyway, I don't want to clog this thread up with this stuff too much. I just don't happen to agree with this particular argument. I'm fine with you disliking Dawkins, though.