That doesn't explain how 'exegesis' leads to the conclusion that the Biblical God is a 'character in a fairy tale'. It's interesting that most of the critical "scholarly analyses" of the Bible have been written by Christian scholars. It's the so-called "higher criticism" that the fundamentalists hate so passionately. The thing is that the scholars that performed these analyses didn't arrive at the conclusion that God is a character in a fairy tale. So it seems that this variety of atheist is drawing very different conclusions from the higher-criticism of the Bible than were drawn by the Bible scholars who actually wrote the studies. That difference needs to be explained and justified. Sidestep what? That doesn't make sense. You just stuck 'the Easter bunny' in there because it sounds absurd to you. Obviously you think that the "Abrahamic" image of God is equally absurd, and you may very well be right about that. But that point still needs to be made. How does highlighting the parts of religious mythologies that seem to contradict modern science or historical understanding (or something) imply the very strong conclusion that "God therefore can not exist?" I think that arguments like these are more probabilistic than apodeictic. They result in estimations of likelihood, not in statements of logical necessity. To play the Devil's (actually in this case God's) advocate, why couldn't somebody say that these ancient people were indeed touched by some divine power, which these ancient cultures then tried to understand in their own culture's terms and perhaps tried to put to their own uses? Many theologians have said that. After all, if a time-traveler were to visit 1000 BCE and showed the locals helicopters, electric lights and televisions, the breathless accounts that would have made their way down to today would be expressed in miraculous mythological imagery as well. That wouldn't prove that helicopters, electric lights and TVs "can not exist". It would just mean that they had been misdescribed by primitive people who had no conceptual framework from which to understand them. In other words, these kind of arguments don't seem to result in proofs that "God can not exist". Rather, they seem to suggest the weaker conclusion that certain purported descriptions of God and accounts of divine activity probably have a low likelihood of being completely and literally true. (In my own estimation, too low to really take seriously.) So, if somebody is looking for information about whatever it is (if anything) that's responsible for reality being here and is keeping it in existence, the Bible might not have very much to tell us. But if you "begin every analysis and discussion of God with the statement that God is a myth", you would appear to be reasoning in a circle. You're introducing your atheistic conclusion as your initial premise. That isn't dissimilar to what the religious fundamentalists do, when they begin their own discussions of religion with the unshakeable initial assumption that God exists and that their Bibles are God's inerrant Word.