Dan, he seems to be arguing the 'Bibles' definition of 'God'.
I would rather see him mount a credible case against the existence of 'a' god. With the definition being unknown.
If you read the entire book not just that one simple chapter he argues against all god's as a supernatural being. That was just one example of how eloquently he presents a case.
Really unless you have read the entire chapter (and indeed the end part he has left out tells this story) He argues about them all.
The 3 main religions of today are descended from a mythical ancestor "Abraham" and hence even arguing against the biblical god is the same as arguing against a god at all.
Without reading the book or having correct understanding of atheism in general it is somewhat pointless discussing it, simply because you do not know his argument and therefore are arguing against a distant point that you have made up not that is in fact there.
The argument presented by matabele and CW last week said that the god he is against is the same they are against is actually somethin ironically discussed in the book and shows Dawkins as the intellectual he is.
He, nor am I are discussing the "Sky god" with the white beard. It is the belief in a supernatural being!
