Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?

[Kirbmarc]

In other words, the position is that infinities are only possible as ideas, or mathematical constructs. Actual infinities cannot exist because they entail logical contradictions.

Exactly. This includes allegedly eternal (i.e. infinite in time) beings. An eternal god entails numerous contradictions.

Take the reviews of Dawkins' own books that point out the intellectual failures in his arguments.

The review cites Thomas Aquinas' arguments, which have been thoroughly discredited since the times of Immanuel Kant. Nowadays those arguments should never be taken seriously by any self-respecting intellectual.

It's a really superficial, boring review that does not properly assess the main point of Dawkins' book, the fact that we have absolutely no evidence of an intelligent, personal god, and therefore atheism is the default position.

I'm not a Dawkins fan (he spends too much time talking about religious morals and making fun of laughable fundamentalists when he should have concentrated on the countless contradictions that are entailed by traditional attributes of the theistic gods), but most of his critics are either intellectually dishonest or actually did not understand the main theme of his book.