'To be fair' says Richard Dawkins in chapter seven of his latest book, 'much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird.' Nice of him to be fair don't you think?
Dawkins hates that weirdness of the Old Testament world especially. He simply cannot get himself across culture. He hates the vindictiveness and vengeance of the Old Testament God, overlooking the evidence that this represented the best understanding of God by the people then. Things have moved on.
This failure to cross culture is typified by Dawkins' description of the murder of Israelite women for sacrificing to Baal as draconian. Draco devised his laws in 621BC give or take, some centuries after the event being described.
He uses this as an example of the disconnection between biblical and modern morals. Who's arguing? Biblical morality has also evolved.
He insists that religion is at the heart of many disputes and wars but that no-one has ever fought in the name of atheism. Nor will they ever?