"However it is the vituperative style which Dawkins employs which I find most distasteful and counterproductive when it comes to what should be an intelligent discussion of an important topic."

OK, Madeleine, how do YOU think Dr Dawkins should regard people who fly planes into buildings full of people, mutilate children's genitals, cover up child sexual abuse in their organisations, and send mentally disabled women into crowded marketplaces to set off explosives strapped to their bodies?

Just mildly misguided? Perhaps all they need is a quick word or two of admonition? Or are they just expressing themselves in their own unique way? Should we just let them get on with it, because, after all, everyone's entitled to their beliefs, and it just doesn't do to be rude about them.

Does it?

It is impossible to either disprove or prove the existence of god. Those who promote a 'god of the gaps' type belief are finding less space, however as we will never understand all that there is to understand they will never be gone completely.

Atheists do not need a spokesperson, and those trying to set up Dawkins as some sort of leader do so in order to attack the man rather than the message. Atheism cannot be disproved, refuted or vilified as it is simply an absence of a belief, simple as that. No matter what Dawkins says most atheists are not going to change what the do or do not believe in. So who cares?

You say: "I had hoped to find some intellectually stimulating arguments for atheism". You do not need to look for arguments for atheism as you will not find them. You need to critically evaluate your belief in the existence of deities and determine if there is any rational argument for them. If you find there is not, then this is atheism.

A key issue is William Lane Craig's debating style - it seems he uses a mix of bare assertions and a smooth talking rhetorical style, with content that varies from debate to debate, yet an encylopaedic array of counter points.

"Craig is a skilled debater, an encyclopedia of facts and quotes, and a careful rhetorician. If you make a logical mistake, Craig knows exactly how to skewer you for it (and for this, I respect him). He holds prepared and persuasive responses to everything an atheist might say, and atheists usually fail to clearly point out the logical flaws in what Craig has to say. Also, Craig does a great job of summarizing the points and counterpoints that have been raised during a debate, and presents them in a way to show he has decisively won. His opponents are never that organized or clear."

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392

And an ability to twist arguments to suit -
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-reasonable-people-should-not-debate.html

Also http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437

If judged as a schoolgirl's essay, I'd probably mark it quite well for her use of language. But as a rational evaluation of an event on the other side of the world, it is far too soaked in self-importance to be an effective contribution.

"I would very much like to see more public debate on the existence of God in Australia, such as the debate between John Lennox and Peter Singer"

One has to wonder, why?

I seem to recall that the debate in question was a fizzer, with Lennox claiming that gravity was "proof" of God.

So maybe there's some lurking doubt in the author's mind, such that she feels the need to have her faith "tested" (I think that's the vogue term amongst Christians) by some charismatic non-believer? The simple reality is that atheists don't need leaders, in the manner that religious folk seem to.

It is not a crusade, with one winner from the debate, and a simple outcome where reason somehow shifts itself from favouring factual reporting, to supporting a narrow-minded belief system.

Which leads to the second misapprehension.

"Despite his standing as a champion of The New Atheism..."

Such an obvious straw-man. Dawkins represents himself, and offers his own views on the corrosive nature of religion. He "champions" nothing but his own book sales.

But it is in the nature of believers to conjure up "the enemy" at every opportunity, as a means to justify their beliefs. These adversaries range from their imaginary "devil", to leaders of faiths that are different to their own, to ordinary people who simply don't accept the existence of their God.

Or any of the many Gods that humans have dreamt up over the years.

Another blind alley the author takes us down is a classic.

"...given that Craig has double PhDs in Theology and Philosophy from two European Universities..."

Legitimacy, she infers, is gained from having studied "theology". Whose initial assumption must be that God exists. Sounds completely circular to me, Much like the contributions of the Peter Selleck of old...

Whatever happened to him?

Perhaps instead of this constant debate over fundamental unknowns (and "unknowables") we could embrace a middle path: http://possibilian.com/?

Might save everyone alot of time and pain...

Stezza is absolutely right. Atheists don't need a pope or a president, and if we did, Dawkins probably wouldn't be the right man for the job. Dawkins isn't the voice of atheism, he just happens to be perceived as the most prominent atheist at the moment.

He also isn't very good at live debate. That's not his strong suit, and a man should know his limitations. When his opponents leave him a solid opening, he never exploits it. He tends to cling to one idea and hammer at it, even if the debate has moved on. He doesn't explore his opponent's arguments, but prefers to defend his own, and generally speaking that's a tactical error. He also has a tendency to become visibly frustrated, which is always poor form.

He has solid arguments, and his scientific knowledge is great, but his abilities are just better suited to print. This is why he doesn't debate creationists OR people who are just professional debaters. Note that nobody said Craig was a creationist, that's just one of the two types of people Dawkins does not debate.

Or it could be that Dawkins has no wish to use his name to sponsor Craig's career. Win or lose, Craig would make a lot of money if Dawkins attended, but if the situation were reversed, the same would not necessarily be true. I would consider that to be a valid reason not to attend Craig's event.

Either way, it's intellectually dishonest for Craig to use Dawkin's refusal to attend as a selling point for his argument. The billboards and empty chair are really just empty theatrics intended to drum up business and lend false credence to what Craig has to say. Grandstanding is not the mark of an intellectual with a solid argument.