Perhaps you haven't read many of Dawkins' "arguments." They are little more than rhetorical barbs, so vapid that Michael Ruse says they make him ashamed to be an atheist. If your mind is open, you might read "Is God a Moral Monster?"
There are only two possible systems for creation of life, ethics, and order: supernatural, or natural. The two systems have been argued at length. Macroevolusionist Theory is on the ropes. Even Anthony Few saw that. If one chooses to reject the evidence for a supernatural origin, and pin their hopes on someday discerning another natural explanation we have no hint of at this time, then that's an emotional reaction. Personally, I don't have that kind of blind faith.
As for me, neither do I have that kind of blind faith, nor any other kind.
Are you going for humor here? I reject your artificial binary choice, as should anyone willing to give the matter honest and unfettered consideration.
Also, I doubt I will devote any time to the book you suggest as it appears that the book is intent on destroying an argument I would never make, and as such would not offer anything relevant to me.
I will only say that both sides seem to insist on defining terms in such a way as to devalue the arguments of the other side. It's really simple, if you control the definitions, you control the outcome of the debate - and destroy any chance of deeper understanding in the process.