hello,
I can't speak for Dawkins (or Dr Marshall)
I'm Catholic. I like people to know my bias..
Atheists may sooth their young childs concerns
(as Dawkins may be doing) by pointing to the wonders of the world
He may replace how God created us out of love and with a will(which he disputes) instead encouraging an elite scientism.
The atheist may express...better to call love what it is
and acknowledge how cues, biochemical or
environmental elicit a response. Just as the sun, we have a very real
measurable relationship to it ( without creating a god myth).
The atheist can further ask how important is the sun? How grand? To your daddy and mommy you are grand! We don't invent
a [ sun ] god, or use resources (temples and sacrifices) a waste
and an abuse.

I hope I'm not offending you. I have friends who are atheists
and they think they are morally superior. They love me
not out of fear or obediance(to a made up god)
, but because they choose to. They remind me all the time how they too are good people. I'm not mocking them.
I do not wish God away.
I'm not in the least antiscience. That would be a contadiction.
I except first cause; atheists deny that.
After they exhaust the moral failings of god they move to how randomness(i.e.no reasons, , decay ) refutes god.
A multiverse might fill in gaps, : no matter(and form) pun to be sure.
the outside things Dawkins says are tidbits of evidendence [ for love] can be distortions. Phenomenon once studied as proof
and replication of cause and effect is suspect.
Can Dawkins give a universal (tested) proof that love is under his operation? He disputes free will.
So many obstacle for atheists to atest to "love"
His daughter is seeking God (again I'm Catholic ) so I see how
he clearly struggles. He doesn't want love to be vapid, his love to
be illusion, so he seeks some (outside himself ) tangible proof.
He says "It [love ] isn't purely inside feelings like the feelings priest call revelations"...
Sorry but Dawkins just drove the bus off nto a swamp.
Priests don't define love.. as purely inside feeling.
He sets up a strawman. by misrepresenting what the church
teaches about love.
He might say the age of the child limited his explaination.
Actually like Hamilton, Wilson and other evolutionary
psycholgist/ethologists what we experience as love
likely arose from kinselection. Hold that for another time.

Because love is a feeling, but God--were God real--would be a metaphysical existent. Lions and tigers and tables and chairs metaphysically exist; if ghosts were real, Bertrand Russell's ghost would metaphysically exist; if angels were real, angels would metaphysically exist. But unless you want to say that an individual feels love because there is a metaphysical existent called "love" which, when he feels love, he is perceiving via some sixth sense, or give some other account on which love metaphysically exists, love and God are not the same sorts of things, and love is indeed not a "thing" at all but merely a feeling.

Here, here!! to that

Andre B, we feel sorry for you in your nasty diatribes, not the other way around. Also, thank “God” I didn’t marry you or have any relationship with you in real life….

LOL; Seems the notion of “God” providing a modicum of kindness and morality serves an evolutionary purpose after all. Perhaps even just simply greasing the wheels of our species’ survival by providing helpful blueprints and boundaries for empathetic and species-centered behavior.

I won't speak for Dr. Taylor, but if I block someone it is usually because their criticism are personal or they lack critical thinking skills. If his perspective is wrong explain it rather than making ad hominem attacks. Even if he can't see your reply others can and can then judge the validity of your criticisms.

This is pretty much his goal.