I (slightly) agree with flying goose: the analogy does not work. I was honest about my opinion on Miranda's blog. I think she writes some fantastic stuff, but this analogy fails (sorry Miranda).

The point of the Karen-Armstrong-theist position about God is that it is trying to point at something that doesn't really exist and to say that it can be the useful foundation of beliefs about the world, and even moral frameworks. They say that because it is "God", the not existence is irrelevant.

You can't parody that with something that both theists and atheists agree exists, like a rabbit! It is the wrong type of entity.

I think a better approach would be to say "Jabberwocky is the question": in other words, to start with something that both atheist and theist agree doesn't exist, and show that basing support for beliefs on that is absurd, and because God is the sake kind of entity, then the position of Armstrong and other fails.

It's comparing (non-existent) like with like.

However, Miranda is one of my favourite bloggers, and I am glad she has gained publicity here.