The illogic of Atheism

No you can't.

No, you can't start from that assumption any more than you can start from an assumption that there is a god.

Say what?  You both need to elaborate. You both need to open your eyes people do both all the time.

I'm sorry I got drawn into this discussion. I won't waste any more time on it.

Say what?  You both need to elaborate. You both need to open your eyes people do both all the time.

Do you understand what is being argued here, or are you just trolling?

You start with the assumption that god exists when you want to discuss the implications of god's existence.

You start with the assumption that god does not exist when you want to discuss the implication of god's nonexistence.

You do not start with either assumption when arguing about the existence or nonexistence of god, because when you start with the assumption the debate is over. Do you understand?

Do you understand what is being argued here, or are you just trolling?

You start with the assumption that god exists when you want to discuss the implications of god's existence.

You start with the assumption that god does not exist when you want to discuss the implication of god's nonexistence.

You do not start with either assumption when arguing about the existence or nonexistence of god, because when you start with the assumption the debate is over. Do you understand?

To determine if the tooth fairy is real? Sometimes replies aren't clear.

To determine if the tooth fairy is real? Sometimes replies aren't clear.

Trolling it is

Yes - a concept distinct from the religious is where I stand on this too. Yet both the religious and the atheists will try to constrain God to religion. Moreover, they both link these concepts to morality, the idea of a personal (anthropomorphic) god and the requirement for worship. I find myself in agreement with Nietzsche when he said “I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.”

Yeah I think we are close to agreement, though I am agnostic on the idea of a loving God and more certain of the God of Philosophers (Prime Mover, Universal Intellect, etc.)

RE: God &Morality, well I think God cannot be the Author of Morality, as per Plato's dialogue on this. The Good must exist prior to or simultaneously with God.

The atheist faith people like Steve001 believe in strikes me as motivated more by some personal aversion to the God you mention on your last line. I'm sympathetic but irrational faith driven atheism doesn't seem like a valuable philosophical position to me.

I'm sympathetic but irrational faith driven atheism doesn't seem like a valuable philosophical position to me.

It isn't and Malf and Steve come off to me as part of the same coin that has a religious fundamentalist on the flip side.

The only difference is one demands God does exist while the other, pretending to somehow be on an intellectual high ground, demands God does not exist.  Neither are overly compelling.... to me at least.

It isn't and Malf and Steve come off to me as part of the same coin that has a religious fundamentalist on the flip side.

The only difference is one demands God does exist while the other, pretending to somehow be on an intellectual high ground, demands God does not exist.  Neither are overly compelling.... to me at least.

I think Malf is agnostic?

Malf, you're doing everything in your power to frame it such that people must respond that ancient people didn't understand things, so they came up with god, so you can then respond that its just a god of the gaps argument. 

What evidence could possibly satisfy your request?

Evidence that the ‘notion of god’ came into existence by a different route.

The question is how Dawkins's "tooth fairy argument" - on your reading of it - is magically able to disprove the existence of God without any consideration of the evidence. The only datum your interpretation seems to require is that for those who don't believe in God, God is a human construct. But the same is true of all manner of human beliefs, including those like the Globular Earth Theory, which scientific orthodoxy definitely favours. For Flat Earthers, it's just a human construct. So apparently by Dawkins's argument, it must be false.

Does that not give you an inkling that there's something wrong with either the argument or your interpretation of it? That to disprove something it's not sufficient that those who disbelieve it dismiss it as a human construct? That we actually need to look at the evidence pro and con, before concluding whether it's likely to be true or not?

Perhaps we are talking past each other as the ‘tooth fairy argument’ can’t disprove god. All it can do is give an indication of the likelihood of something/anything existing that has been dreamed up. There may be a god whose existence has been correctly described. This would be more by luck than judgement.