The illogic of Atheism

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

Of course, if you start with the assumption that God doesn't exist, then God must be a human construct. If you start with the assumption that God does exist, then God isn't a human construct. Where does any of that get you?

Of course, if you start with the assumption that God doesn't exist, then God must be a human construct. If you start with the assumption that God does exist, then God isn't a human construct. Where does any of that get you?

Ditto tooth fairy.

Ditto tooth fairy.

Ditto Sherlock Holmes. Ditto Harry Potter. Ditto Bilbo Baggins. Ditto Merlin the Magician.

So what?

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

Oh dear. 

Ditto Sherlock Holmes. Ditto Harry Potter. Ditto Bilbo Baggins. Ditto Merlin the Magician.

So what?

I think you’ve got it

Ditto the Globular Earth, for that matter. Does that mean we can prove the Earth is flat, by applying Dawkinese logic?

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

Certainly not. You're entirely missing the point of what I (and I presume Kam) was saying. The idea behind god is that god is a necessary being - and no matter the shortcomings in human description, no matter the error in human conception, god exists. If indeed god exists, surely you wouldn't say that because mankind's conception or description thereof is not entirely accurate, that that would somehow make god not exist. If god exists, god exists independent of how accurate or not man's understanding of god is.

What I was saying was that there is no lens through which we can conceive of or discuss god but through mankind, given that (at least right now) man is the only sort of sentient being with whom a discussion of the issue can be had. Thus, we are inherently discussing a version of god that is "man-made". That is not the same as conceding that god is the of the same class as the tooth fairy, in that god and the tooth fairy are (as you're putting it) man-made constructs that we know do not exist.

Further, they are not in the same class at all - because the qualities of a god are in an entirely different realm than the qualities of the tooth fairy.

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.

I agree entirely

Ditto the Globular Earth, for that matter. Does that mean we can prove the Earth is flat, by applying Dawkinese logic?

I can’t see how that would work. I thought we were talking about dreamed up, unobservable entities. 

Where and why did the notion of ‘god’ arise?

Certainly not. You're entirely missing the point of what I (and I presume Kam) was saying. The idea behind god is that god is a necessary being - and no matter the shortcomings in human description, no matter the error in human conception, god exists. If indeed god exists, surely you wouldn't say that because mankind's conception or description thereof is not entirely accurate, that that would somehow make god not exist. If god exists, god exists independent of how accurate or not man's understanding of god is.

What I was saying was that there is no lens through which we can conceive of or discuss god but through mankind, given that (at least right now) man is the only sort of sentient being with whom a discussion of the issue can be had. Thus, we are inherently discussing a version of god that is "man-made". That is not the same as conceding that god is the of the same class as the tooth fairy, in that god and the tooth fairy are (as you're putting it) man-made constructs that we know do not exist.

Further, they are not in the same class at all - because the qualities of a god are in an entirely different realm than the qualities of the tooth fairy.

The idea that god is a necessary being intrigues me. You mean to explain away things that hitherto are incomprehensible?