The illogic of Atheism

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

The question is how Dawkins's "tooth fairy argument" - on your reading of it - is magically able to disprove the existence of God without any consideration of the evidence. The only datum your interpretation seems to require is that for those who don't believe in God, God is a human construct. But the same is true of all manner of human beliefs, including those like the Globular Earth Theory, which scientific orthodoxy definitely favours. For Flat Earthers, it's just a human construct. So apparently by Dawkins's argument, it must be false.

Does that not give you an inkling that there's something wrong with either the argument or your interpretation of it? That to disprove something it's not sufficient that those who disbelieve it dismiss it as a human construct? That we actually need to look at the evidence pro and con, before concluding whether it's likely to be true or not?

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?

One can start from that assumption. Have you delved into the evoluionary history and archeological evidences of "religious" ideas?

One can start from that assumption.

No you can't.

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?

How about a concept directly from the big guy in the sky?

One can start from that assumption. Have you delved into the evoluionary history and archeological evidences of "religious" ideas?

No, you can't start from that assumption any more than you can start from an assumption that there is a god.

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.

Did you know this? Abraham's God was just one god amongst many at one time. Why is God necessary? Do you know God in the OT alludes to there being more than one god?

Did you know this? The Abrahams God was just one god amongst many at one time. Why is God necessary?

So you're taking what I said, putting it in your own self-defined box (which I never said anything about), and asking me to make an argument within your box?

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.

Defending Dawkins on the strength of his tooth-fairy argument is either brave or silly (maybe both). 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...kinsvsgod1

To Dawkins, the existence of God is just as ridiculous as the celestial teapot or the existence of the tooth fairy, neither of which can be disproved (page 52).

McGrath seems to have pre-empted this argument and he writes with a Dawkins-like ferocity on this point:

"[The tooth-fairy] is a schoolboy argument that has accidentally found its way into a grown-up discussion. It is as amateurish as it is unconvincing. There is no serious empirical evidence that people regard God, Santa Claus, and the tooth fairy as being in the same category ... a large number of people come to believe in God in later life - when they are 'grown up'. I have yet to meet anyone who came to believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy late in life."

Dawkins doesn't have to target his audience, he needs to make a coherent and responsible argument. The simulation hypothesis, as I understand it, is something that has attracted atheists and materialists precisely because it avoids the supernatural so it is entirely distinguishable from a theistic god. If Dawkins were to concede the point on the possibility of a god other than the personal God of religion, then he would not be an atheist, he would be agnostic.

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?

They didn't understand how things worked.
Pertinent  yo this whole thread.
http:// https://www.livescience.com/5236...liefs.html

They didn't understand how things worked.
Pertinent  yo this whole thread.
https://www.livescience.com/52364-origins-supernatural-relgious-beliefs.html

Again, false. They understood in a lot of ways the arguments much better than people today do (including yourself). Suggesting that they're less intelligent than modern man, that they weren't as capable of rational thought, is inaccurate if you're remotely familiar with thinks from thousands of years ago like Aristotle, for just one of many examples.

It must be nice being so content with just hand waving everything away without weak, cursory one liners.