That's the core of his argument, though: faith is not rational. In order to establish physical basis for something, you need something stronger than "I just believe it is so". If such were not the case, we'd still be stuck with theoretical dead-ends like the aether and geocentrism.

Dawkins explicitly attacks the notion of a personal God, one who is on-hand to help and will give you hand if you really need it, because just such a God is absolutely testable. If he intervened and miraculously helped out people as often as people are inclined to think, it would be extremely noticeable. We'd be able to tell. Prayed-for patients would do better. Devout soccer teams would score more often. We see no such effect; therefore, Dawkins concludes, there is no God that interferes with human affairs. Because we can't test a God who refuses to be testable, Dawkins doesn't attempt to touch it. In fact, early in his book, he outright says that he's attacking the notion of a personal God, not a divine watchmaker kind of God.

Well for one, how many would notice anyway if they did get help? Help as we see it is a problem as the statement about soccer. What we need and what we want are two different things. What we THINK we need is typically what we want. God isn't supposed to be about granting our wishes like a genie. So many times I hear "I never saw a Porsche in my driveway" well, that's because we can't get past the material way of thinking.

How many of us would like to think or give control to any being if it could be done? Probably 2% of all people would accept. We want our free will. God is also not supposed to bend our free will to accept God, we do so on our own of our own choosing. If there were such proof outright of a divine entity, that would most likely defeat all purpose and turn people into so much sheep, praying for miracles in every way, not wanting to accomplish anything on their own.

People are already not much better than sheep, kissing ass of those who are in power or rich or simply have some higher standing, such is the way of society, believing themselves better for being closer to those in power or such. We all end up in the ground either way no matter what we were or have so this is quite a false sense of living and a downfall. Religion puts a wedge in this in many ways, giving some a sense of self worth and not being above or below anyone else. If used otherwise, which sometimes it is, that's not a good thing but with anything in life, there are those who abuse ANYTHING, tangible or not.
Just as people say religion causes war. Religion doesn't create wars, people do, more money goes to weapons than cancer and disease research by FAR. Did God will this? No. It's our doing, our own choice. When you have starving children in a country and yet we have people who own multiple houses\mansions and could do much good with their money, instead most choose to just live it up. This is once again, our choice, not God's.

If someone has kids, you tell them to clean their room, say they don't listen. Should a parent simply clean their room for them? NO. Why not? Because they wouldn't learn their lesson on self worth and doing something to help better themselves. Responsibility. Why would God be any different? If God truly cares, then our mistakes will be our own until we become a better people, on our own else how would we learn? Once again, proof would bring weakness, not strength.

While my beliefs may differ from many and I'm not claiming to be a holy man by any means, there is some rationale to this but it's rarely seen. Even if God came down and gave us the big picture, we most likely wouldn't understand it anyway.

If people die, then simply, it's meant to be. If anything in life happens, it's meant to be and there is no changing that. We all die and many deaths bring new light to others as well as scientifically make room for new life. Sure it can be the worst nightmare for many of us if we lose a loved one and I have as I'm sure many others have and even if someone doesn't believe in God, what does it hurt to hope they are in a better place? If there is a bigger picture to all this, we couldn't grasp it anyway let alone to say there simply isn't.

So in closing, if so many prayers are for soccer scores, automobiles, riches, whatever, is it a wonder they aren't answered? We would cry for freedom then cry if not handed miracles on a plate.

So, you're arguing for a God that won't show his presence at all?

See this quote:People who restrict themselves to the study of the physical, such as scientists and naturalists, can't begin touching on the question of a God who refuses to show himself. You're arguing above and beyond the scope of Dawkins' argument by a fair margin.

Also, my experience shows that most people don't have such a non-interventionist view of God. They generally attribute meaningful intervention to otherwise unlikely events.

I agree but let me ask, what good does it do to state such happenings if you know some would find any reason to debunk them no matter how un-scientific they would be? I never stated I thought there absolutely no signs of a god, simply, most believe god should appear and prove himself\herself or provide certain miracles to satisfy them, which I feel is completely wrong to assume. So no, I'm not arguing about a God that fails to show them self, to some, God does but if you are blind to it, you wont see or want to believe it anyway, this is why it's a deep personal belief. I could state many things that have happened and while I am not a specific religion, I pray but unselfishly, mainly for others or help for my family in general, never for my own needs and strange things have happened that could probably not be explained otherwise but as stated, those who want to debunk something, will stop at nothing to do so just as those who do believe in God , truly believe, will not let that be swayed by anyone. It seems funny how Jesus was crucified for his beliefs although he did nothing to harm anyone, and it seems religious people are getting the same treatment. Those that have done no great wrong that is, being a good person doesn't come with religion or money or power \status for sure. Even Jesus while human and being crucified asked, "why has thou forsaken me?" For a fleeting instant, his own belief must have been compromised, it doesn't surprise me that many people don't believe or their faith gets shattered, if it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone.

Once again, intervention or not, this is supposed to be free will, I don't expect some gold bars to fall through my roof, I work for it, I strive for what I need and get help where it's needed most.

I consider myself lucky to have been raised Southern Baptist in the mid 20th century. The Fundamentalist Southern Baptist Convention is so apallingly ridiculous that I had no problem whatsoever realizing that I was an Atheist before I was out of my teens.

It's really hard to figure out what you're arguing here. Dawkins presents clear cogent arguments which should be considered on their own, irrespective of who said them. Attacking Dawkins instead of the arguments is a well-known fallacy, called Ad Hominem. Basically it's a way of side-stepping issues, rather than tackling them. You're not addressing what you disagree with in Dawkins, but saying you don't like him. Fair enough, but that's not an argument against what he is saying.

You're right that faith is nothing like as useful, important, practical, sensible, as evidence. Because faith is indistinguishable from opinion, there's no reason to give it any more respect, or to take it any more seriously. If you feel beliefs and faith deserve to be taken seriously you have to come up with some reasons as to why. For example, why should I give more credibility to the existence of angels than leprechauns? Why should I believe in God but not Zeus? If you can't come up with reasons, the argument fails through lack of support, just like lots of other fanciful ideas.

It's not ironic at all. What he has demonstrated is that the claims of religion to be taken seriously don't stand up. That's upset people who rest on their opinion as if it is more significant than it really is. He has taken religious claims seriously and shown how empty they are. It's sad for religious people to hear that but they have the chance to answer it. And everyone is still waiting...

There's no point slagging off Dawkins because you don't like him. If you have something to counter what he wrote, that might have some effect. If not, well, his arguments still stand. God is a delusion.