A great deal of speculation in that article. Sounds more like psycotherapy ideas than real psychology/neuroscience. Meanwhile, let's look at the (paraphrased) claims: "Science is not compatible with religion." Yet the Big Bang theory was invented by a physicist who went on to become a Catholic priest, George Lemaitre. And the father of modern genetics is not Darwin but a catholic monk, Gregor Mendel. hmmm. Both had g…
I fail to see how Dawkins is "lying by ommission (which he already does with evolution)"; maybe you can elaborate how that is.
I agree when you say there is no proof of non-existence of a supreme being.
Also, I think that faith as "belief without evidence" doesn't applies to atheists more than religious persons. I have seen argument of such thing but fail to see how it is good. How is that?
I have seen many arguments for and against the existence of God, and they are not valid. There are different problems with them.
Also, believe or not believing the existence of God doesn't make you irrational. (Although a lot of both atheists and religious people will do many irrational stuff sometimes.)