The illogic of Atheism

I was responding to K, with respect to the specific god(s) he cited. When Dawkins is referring to ‘god’ he is invariably referring to those that are currently en vogue and dominate the religious landscape (abrahamic). Man made organised religions appear to be exclusively in his cross hairs.

If you have in mind a concept of god that isn’t the ‘invisible friend’ variety, with a genital fixation, he (and I) are probably more receptive.

It's not really a question of what I have in mind. Dawkins was specifically trying to ridicule what this article said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/25/opini...igion.html

But probably the tweet isn't really worth over-analysing.

Perhaps it's unfair to judge Dawkins's argument on the basis of a tweet. He also mentions the tooth fairy briefly in his book "The God Delusion". Here is the relevant paragraph, from the "10th Anniversary Edition":

[Image: ToothFairy.jpg]
https://books.google.com/books?id=emE7DA...5&lpg=PA75

Apparently the argument rests on the assumption that the existence of God and the existence of the tooth fairy are equally improbable. To my mind, that begs the question.

The Tooth-Fairy argument is a comment on that particular line of reasoning, not on God.

If that line of reasoning would also tell you that the Tooth-Fairy was real, then that line of reasoning is not valid. That is, if it tells you that your proposition is true, even when we know the proposition to be false, what good is it when applied to something we’re not sure about?

That’s why the Tooth-Fairy is chosen as the example, rather than something less silly. It has to be something which everyone can clearly see is false. Choosing something like Odin may not have the same obviousness to everyone, especially now that American Gods is on TV.

ETA: Example:
“It is often said, mainly by the 'no-contests', that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?” Richard Dawkins
https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Linda

The Tooth-Fairy argument is a comment on that particular line of reasoning, not on God.

If that line of reasoning would also tell you that the Tooth-Fairy was real, then that line of reasoning is not valid. 

No. 

In his tweet, Dawkins wasn't responding to a claim that a line of reasoning could establish that God was real. He was responding to a statement that “Denying the existence of God is as much a leap of faith as asserting it.” 

In the context of his book, Dawkins was advancing the tooth fairy as an argument against agnostism, not an argument against theism.

I have to admit this made me laugh. 

You want me to tell you why it's inane?

No. You voluntarily said it. So explain it. 

In a reply to Fls you pointed out it's Dawkins demeanor you don't like so why practice what you don't like?

The idea of Steve001 demanding people read and understand something before commenting...

No. You voluntarily said it. So explain it. 

In a reply to Fls you pointed out it's Dawkins demeanor you don't like so why practice what you don't like?

To be clear, I didn't mean laugh in a mocking way. I genuinely laughed when you said I am never nice to you, not because I think it's false, but because I thought it was funny.

Anyhow, it's inane because it doesn't make any sense. For something to exist does it have to have been something cave people drew on walls? Is it your expectation that if a god exists, that he/she/it would have walked the earth in a form readily able to be drawn by cave people?

In the absence of those cave drawings, what does that tell us about the existence of god? Are ou suggesting that because there were no cave drawings of god, thus there can't be a god?

There are also no cave drawings of electrons, muons, quarks, or any other microscopic particles. There are no cave drawings of electromagnetism. There are no cave drawings of a million things that exist but that we are not able to see or perceive. And there are many conceptions of god which very intelligent people have argued for over thousands of years which likewise could hardly be perceived in a similar way (and don't be mistaken, I am not equating a conception of god to electrons or the like).

In essence, there not being any cave drawings of god tells us absolutely nothing about whether or not god exists, and saying so is either trolling or very poorly thought out. And I think that just scratches the surface of the problems with your statement

It's not really a question of what I have in mind. 

It is, if you’re the one trying to see the logic in his position.

To be clear, I didn't mean laugh in a mocking way. I genuinely laughed when you said I am never nice to you, not because I think it's false, but because I thought it was funny.

Anyhow, it's inane because it doesn't make any sense. For something to exist does it have to have been something cave people drew on walls? Is it your expectation that if a god exists, that he/she/it would have walked the earth in a form readily able to be drawn by cave people?

In the absence of those cave drawings, what does that tell us about the existence of god? Are ou suggesting that because there were no cave drawings of god, thus there can't be a god?

There are also no cave drawings of electrons, muons, quarks, or any other microscopic particles. There are no cave drawings of electromagnetism. There are no cave drawings of a million things that exist but that we are not able to see or perceive. And there are many conceptions of god which very intelligent people have argued for over thousands of years which likewise could hardly be perceived in a similar way (and don't be mistaken, I am not equating a conception of god to electrons or the like).

In essence, there not being any cave drawings of god tells us absolutely nothing about whether or not god exists, and saying so is either trolling or very poorly thought out. And I think that just scratches the surface of the problems with your statement

The implication of that comment indicates God, gods and all manner of supernatural beings are evolving constructs that become more elaborate coinciding with our social evolution. Possibly the oldest indication of funerial display may be a simple red quarzite stone hand axe found buried amongst Homo Heidelbergensis bones dating to about 350 thousand years ago. Go forward in time thousands of years to find further elaboration of symbology and rites. That trend continues. What you won't find are rites, symbology, images of supernatural beings cut from whole cloth in prehistory and history. Malf's post #80 is right.

It was suppose to make one laugh. Calling it inane reminded me of the mocking demeanor of Dawkins you so dislike.

It is, if you’re the one trying to see the logic in his position.

The logic of his position (if there is any) depends on how he defines his terms - not on how I define them, or you define them, or Uncle Tom Cobley defines them. Obviously.