"The difference between science and philosophy, is that science requires proof, where philosophy requires conjecture."
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sat 22 Oct, 3:49:06pm

Philosophy can be defined as "the study of how to think about ideas and ask questions about truth, right and wrong - includes ethics, history of philosophy, logic"* so it can be more than conjecture (or, perhaps, less than conjecture, depending on you point of view)

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/philosophy

Philosophy seems to have been misappropriated since the great philosophies of Aristotle.
...............................................

"It all makes sense when you realise that Atheism a la Dawkins is a religion."
Posted by Anamele, Sat 22 Oct, 8:57:53am

Religion, as defined by the High Court of Australia, invokes "the supernatural":

""Recommendation 14
"That the definition of religion be based on the principles established in the Scientology case, namely:
- belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and
- acceptance and observance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief."" http://www.cdi.gov.au/report/cdi_chap20.htm

a/theism = without god; without invoking "the supernatural"

Commentary on atheism as 'a religion' is a false position - a "strawman" fallacy; even a 'category error'.

"The search for truth, wisdom, what is, which many people like to call God."

Calling 'God' wisdom is another strawman - better to stick to objective philosophy and one of its key tools - the 'formal argument'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

Another Dawkins-should-debate-Craig article -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/22/richard-dawkins-refusal-debate-william-lane-craig

The first 50 comments are worth a read, too.

McReal

Like Einstein debating George W, or your good self attempting an intelligent discussion with Formersnag - achieves nothing. Besides many times Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, AC Grayling - many, many other people of great thought and intellect have indulged those such as Craig before. If someone believes in a supernatural cause for evertything, so be it - but let others who do not, live in peace and do not indoctrinate children into beliefs which limit human intellect and knowledge. And not demanding special privilege such as tax breaks would indicate a more altruistic reason for belief in a deity.

As for some arguments, such as 'who created the creator' being "as old as the hills", as author to your link descended to using. It is an old argument simply because it holds up. Science admits it does not know the answer for everything, where as religionists claim to have a single answer for everything - one for which there is no evidence at all.

So stop worrying and live and let live.

The Kalam cosmological argument as espoused more recently by Craig:

Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence.

If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore: God exists.

This is exactly what Dawkins was describing as "The god of the gaps" and can be read as:

The universe must have a cause. We don't know of a cause, therefore it must be god. (or if we use god to fill the gap, we have a complete theory)

This is not acceptable as proof in any scientific field. If this is proffered as proof, then there is no foundation to debate.

So much faux outrage…

In an article subheaded "Atheism needs a better spokesman than Richard Dawkins" Ms Kirk states, "My recent reading of Dawkins' The God Delusion was also something of a disappointment. I had hoped to find some intellectually stimulating arguments for atheism. What I found however was not much more than an expression of Dawkins' personal disdain for religion."

This is proceeded with criticism of Dawkins failure to accept an invitation to William Lane Craig's lecture "Is God a Delusion? A critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion."

Criticism of failing to engage, despite "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."

So, without having to do anything (for which she is critical of him) Dawkins is doing what Ms Kirk wants – not speaking about atheism. At least on this occasion.

Atheism would need a better spokesman, though, if the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship organisers – to settle the matter once and for all – had booked God to make a personal appearance to debate his existence and Dawkins had still failed to show.

This is preceded with criticism of Dawkins failure to accept an invitation to William Lane Craig's lecture "Is God a Delusion? A critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion."

Is it Sod's Law applying when you notice that last typo only as you push the post comment button?