Another apologist with his "clever" questions

[Jesster]

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.

I'm surprised you've never heard him say it. I don't know if my memory is being biased, but I hear him say it in every other debate he's in, in every other breakfast show he's in, in every other written quote I read about him.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/23651-t...y-the-most

This is literally him every other time. And all he's doing is just badmouthing. There's no discussion of ideas, just personal attacks to undermine YHWH.

Okay then. In this case, God is the subject of the debate. God is not his opponent in the debate. This is not an ad hominem. I can understand if you are frustrated with him badmouthing the idea of God, but this isn't the fallacy you were looking for.