The illogic of Atheism

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.

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.”

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

No - we're talking about concepts that some people think are dreamed up, and others think are real. If everyone agreed they were dreamed up, we wouldn't be discussing them, would we?

Did you not see the reference to Merlin earlier? Does Dawkins's argument prove that there was no historical Merlin? Apparently you think so. How does that work? How do you disprove something without looking at the evidence? I thought sceptics were meant to be rather keen on looking at the evidence?

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?

I mean, you're not even making an argument. You're just saying from the get-go that god is dreamed up. That certainly isn't what we're talking about, and that's not an argument, it's you a priori saying god doesn't exist, so any argument or conception of god is no different than the tooth fairy

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 or 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.”

Yes. And Dawkin’s arguments have to hit the broadest audience. Despite that paragraph from Chris, his targets seem pretty focused. I’ve never seen him argue against the ‘simulation hypothesis’ which would suppose an entity indistinguishable from god. Then again, I’ve by no means read all his output.

I mean, you're not even making an argument. You're just saying from the get-go that god is dreamed up. That certainly isn't what we're talking about, and that's not an argument, it's you a priori saying god doesn't exist, so any argument or conception of god is no different than the tooth fairy

And you seem to be saying from the get-go that the tooth fairy is dreamed up. If the notion of god was not dreamed up, where did it come from?

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.

I like Malf's 119 reply. It is your right to think whatever you want but you are turning a blind eye to the historical and archeological evidences that there were no gods or other supernatural beings indicated in the very earliest human societies.

No - we're talking about concepts that some people think are dreamed up, and others think are real. If everyone agreed they were dreamed up, we wouldn't be discussing them, would we?

Did you not see the reference to Merlin earlier? Does Dawkins's argument prove that there was no historical Merlin? Apparently you think so. How does that work? How do you disprove something without looking at the evidence? I thought sceptics were meant to be rather keen on looking at the evidence?

I’m open to evidence that the notion of gods wasn’t dreamed up.

I like Malf's 119 reply. It is your right to think whatever you want.

Sci's post was at 119. If you mean 118, I responded to that.

I'm glad you think so steve.

And you seem to be saying from the get-go that the tooth fairy is dreamed up. If the notion of god was not dreamed up, where did it come from?

There are a variety of arguments, including necessity. Those arguments are long and complicated, and as much as I'm sure you'd like to hand wave those away by saying they're arguments from incredulity, I think that's a really sad and cursory cop out.

I don't think I've ever heard that the tooth fairy is necessary, nor have I ever encountered an argument for her or his existence.

I’m open to evidence that the notion of gods wasn’t dreamed up.

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?