The illogic of Atheism

His point is that the ‘notion of the tooth fairy’ and the ‘notion of god’ are both human constructs?

Surely whether the notion of God is a human construct is what's at issue between theists and atheists? I still don't see how the fictional nature of the tooth fairy is relevant to settling that argument.

Completely wrong, as always steve. You continue to believe that people can only be proponents if they're emotionally motivated and have no other rationale whatsoever. I haven't even read the article - I chimed in about Dawkins in particular and have limited my posts in this thread to that topic thus far.

I don't "like" people's points because they are for or against atheism, theism, the existence of psi or not. I do my best to pay more attention to and have more respect for ones that are substantiated, well reasoned, and that acknowledge the other side's arguments without hand waving them away by avoiding actual discussion of why you think they come up short. I have agreed with and disagreed with many people who say they're atheists, just like I've agreed and disagreed with many who say they're theists. Unlike you, I don't reflexively dismiss people and chalk it all up to emotion.

And amazingly you go as far as saying that me and "every member" "don't like atheists". Another completely false and baseless assertion. We're talking about beliefs here - not necessarily people, unless you're alleging that all people who share a belief act the same or are of equal stature in terms of fairness, approach, demeanor, and reason.

You say you did not read this article yet decided to participate. Shouldn't you have read it first? If you had you would have seen prominently featured a photo of Dawkins at the top of the page (Hitchens is also linked within it). 

The main post was about atheism. It does not matter at all what his thoughts on psi are - those don't make his points about atheism any more or less valid.

His diatribe is a criticism of the Dawkins et alia brand of atheism and members are criticizing Dawkins and implicating themselves with the author thoughts. It's easy to misconstrue where you are coming from when you have done likewise without first stating you did not read it.

Go back to post 60 to read my qualifying remarks in parentheses.

Is not his point that the ‘notion of the tooth fairy’ and the ‘notion of god’ are both human constructs?

Quite right. Have you noticed there is are no God, gods or toothfaries painted on pre-historic cave walls?

Is not his point that the ‘notion of the tooth fairy’ and the ‘notion of god’ are both human constructs?

If that had been the point then he could have used a more respectful example. Perhaps Zeus or Odin (off the top of my head). The fact that he trivialises the subject using childish notions such as the tooth fairy or a ridiculous contrivance such as the "flying spaghetti monster" is surely intentionally insulting and in keeping with his exhortation to "Mock them! Ridicule them! In public!"

Quit right. Have you noticed there is are no God, gods or toothfaries painted on pre-historic cave walls?

Even by your standards, this response is remarkably inane.

Even by your standards, this response is remarkably inane.

You never say any nice things to me. Really? Do tell?

Hate to be "that Guy", Slience but I'm not sure you meant duplicitous in its usual sense: deceitful. I think you were suggesting the point had been made more than once (duplicated). Sorry if I'm misunderstanding.

ROFL.

Thanks Kam!  Wow, I can't believe I screwed that one up.  Yes, you are correct and again... thanks for being "that Guy"!  (And I mean it)

If that had been the point then he could have used a more respectful example. Perhaps Zeus or Odin (off the top of my head).

The idea that referring to a specific, less fashionable, god would make the comment less insulting seems to give his argument even more power, imo.

No Malf, you're missing the point.  For me at least.  It isn't the position he is trying to assert.  Its the boorish, attacking, unkind, broad negatively stereo typing way in which he goes about it.

The idea that referring to a specific, less fashionable, god would make the comment less insulting seems to give his argument even more power, imo.

But it isn't about his argument, it is about his manner. Why should he be insulting? Why sneer, mock and ridicule?

It may not be obvious but I'm sure I'm not alone among proponents here in actually agreeing with a lot of what he says. I've had my own rants about religious intolerance, biblical literalism, evangelical brainwashing and a bunch of other stuff that can be found under various religious banners. But I draw a line far short of his bigoted ideology and I condemn his tactics as much as I would any fundamentalist.