I haven't read the pages of response, just the opening post. So bear with me if this has been covered and put me down as another debator on Dawkins' side.
So before he even begins his examination he implies that religious belief is NEVER based on evidence and that it exists DESPITE the evidence. This seems to me the sort of presupposing that the WTS does itself! If it was an HONEST examination he should be aware that religious faith can be based on argument. He may reject those arguments as false, but that doesn't change the fact that his own definition of faith is limited. He sticks to this definition throughout the entire book.
What's your argument here? You say that Dawkins says religious belief is NEVER based on evidence and then you insist that religious belief is based on arguments. Arguments are not evidence. You could be agreeing with him while being upset at him at the same time. I read conflicting messages where you first agree then you disagree. Even the Christian standard, the Bible, goes along with the part about evidence when it defines "faith."
...the best overall explanation of the whole of the facts and evidence around us.
This worked back in the day, but our examination of facts and evidence got better. The best overall explanations of prior stages of man allowed for the earth being the center of the flat earth, for there being a god of virtually everything. When a volcano erupted, the best overall explanation at the time was that the mountain or the god of the mountain was mad, and a human sacrifice was needed to appease the anger. Reasoning/arguing over what we see is still not evidence. When the facts were finally available that the earth is not flat nor the center of the universe, those explanations were discarded (well, by most people eventually). Certainly, there is ample evidence now of evolution in our past. Certainly, there is ample examination that the Bible's claims of historicity are just not true- no flood 4-5 thousand years ago, no Eden 6 thousand years ago, no exodus, no large 12-tribe Kingdom under David and Solomon.
Yet there is still no solid evidence of God, nothing but testimony from the faithful that they "know" from personal revelation or answers to their prayers. That anecdotal evidence is from various belief systems and none of it is verifiable.
On the flip side, science is still in it's infancy. Much of what they say will be discarded. The Big Bang is one of those explanations that currently seems to be the best overall explanation of the facts and evidence available. I think science will laugh at that one day and they will be on to another explanation when more facts are available. Similar with other things we are learning about the universe and life.
Fortunately, I am free to look at "evidence" and form an opinion of my own. My "arguments" are not evidence, but I like them. Enjoy yours.