Quite a few people have claimed that. So far no-one has identified any emotive arguments or logical fallacies in his work.

He explains that there is no reason to require a supernatural being to provide explanations of how the world works. He argues that it is not possible to "prove" the existence or non-existence of an insubstantial supernatural god but that for rational people to believe it in preference to any other fanciful invention, there needs to be extraordinary evidence which is missing.

He has then, very consistently categorised the philosophical mistakes illustrated by various religious positions. For example, he explains the difference between ethical and religious thinking.

None of this stuff is emotive. Perhaps the book deserves a second read?