The illogic of Atheism

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.

Yes. And his target is consistently the abrahamic gods of organised religion. The ‘invisible friend’ variety, hence the parallels with the tooth fairy. Perhaps the only difference is one has a stronger marketing department.

Yes. And his target is consistently the abrahamic gods of organised religion. The ‘invisible friend’ variety, hence the parallels with the tooth fairy. Perhaps the only difference is one has a stronger marketing department.

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. A couple of minutes Googling produced a discussion of how Dawkins defines "God" in "The God Hypothesis", including this:
"I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutp...on-of-god/

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. A couple of minutes Googling produced a discussion of how Dawkins defines "God" in "The God Hypothesis", including this:
"I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutp...on-of-god/

That's certainly how I have understood his position for many years too. I might have had more time for him - apart from his arrogance - if he had constrained his criticism to organised religion but that would require being open-minded about the more philosophical, less religious concepts of God. However, arrogance and open-mindedness are not often found in the same personality.

I posted the Monty Python sketch earlier and I find it ironic that many "YouTube atheists" hold Cleese in high regard. Yet John Cleese is one who will be forthright in his criticism of organised religion while maintaining a profound interest in the spiritual. Cleese is a regular visitor to and supporter of the work at Esalen which people like Dawkins would be quick to denounce.

https://www.sfgate.com/style/bigelow/art...796723.php

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. A couple of minutes Googling produced a discussion of how Dawkins defines "God" in "The God Hypothesis", including this:
"I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutp...on-of-god/

So give me a version of ‘god’ that isn’t a man-made concept, where the logic breaks down.

So give me a version of ‘god’ that isn’t a man-made concept, where the logic breaks down.

What a ridiculous question, Malf. If not a human concept, what else could it be? A rabbit's concept? A computer's? Maybe you also need to define man-made?

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.

I'm honestly not sure what you're even trying to say.

In any event, this is also demonstrably false. Conceptions of god in the past are every bit as intellectually mature and developed as ones today. Ed Feser is a good resource for discussions of those various concepts - including discussions of the supernatural from people like Aristotle and Plato. Certainly the concept of god, at least a non-personal one, has not evolved in any great way. Newer arguments may be put forth, or new analogies for understanding the concepts, but some of the most robust arguments for god that I've seen are ones conceived of by ancient philosophers. 

But again, I've read and reread your post and I don't really understand what it is that you're getting at or how it's a response to what I said.

Didn't mean to mock. More meant to say that I don't think it is any sort of legitimate argument against god's existence.

So give me a version of ‘god’ that isn’t a man-made concept, where the logic breaks down.

The entire idea behind god is that god is a being that is beyond human comprehension. What other kind of conception could possibly be given, other than a man-made one, since it is man who is the only being discussing this issue?

The entire idea behind god is that god is a being that is beyond human comprehension. What other kind of conception could possibly be given, other than a man-made one, since it is man who is the only being discussing this issue?

Exactly.

What a ridiculous question, Malf. If not a human concept, what else could it be? A rabbit's concept? A computer's? Maybe you also need to define man-made?

The entire idea behind god is that god is a being that is beyond human comprehension. What other kind of conception could possibly be given, other than a man-made one, since it is man who is the only being discussing this issue?

I think you are both supporting Dawkin's point. They are human constructs in the same class as the tooth fairy.

The entire idea behind god is that god is a being that is beyond human comprehension. What other kind of conception could possibly be given, other than a man-made one, since it is man who is the only being discussing this issue?

I do think we can, to an extent, distinguish a god from a religion (Christianity, Hinduism, Wicca, etc) and the qualities philosophy ascribes to a singular (not necessarily conscious) entity - the Prime Mover, the Universal Intellect, The Non-Composite Simplicity...

I think there are ways to reconcile this entity, who seems far removed from any mortal affair, with some common conceptions of god but the mileage varies.