Richard Dawkins’ latest book (collaborated with Neil Gaiman, and Russ Kick) is called Everything You Know About God Is Wrong. This provokes a couple interesting questions.
First, if Dawkins doesn’t believe in God, how can he ask such a question in the first place? If God doesn’t exist, then how could any view of him be wrong?
Second, how would Dawkins know what view of God is wrong compared to what is right? What is his point of reference? If he claims it is his reason, well that just doesn’t line up, because his reason claims God doesn’t exist in the first place (per point #1). If he still says his reason and skirts the issue, the points remains – he doesn’t have a point of reference to compare what God “ought to be like” (in his view) to what God isn’t (in his view).
If you are going to say God “isn’t” something, you have to have something to point to so that you can say what God is. Otherwise you are just taking shots in the dark. This is not reason, but just subjectivity.