"Humanity needs humanism,

 not Christianity and 

certainly not Islam."

My rebuttal:

 Philosophy on the nature of god, whether or not god exists, is not philosophy. It is simply an antithesis. An antithesis no matter if you prove both the existence of god or the fact: God does not exist. If we could we would strangle god. (No matter which way it is put into language.) Ask yourself, if you had the power to contingently prove god did exist or not. What would you do with that matter of induction. Would the world collapse tomorrow as a system capable of thought or not, if you had power to disprove god? This is the basis of all rational inquiry. We don't have to ask the question whether there is a god. What matters is if you identify with the subject matter. God is an impartial object, and wouldn't care either way. The idea of god is philosophy. Which is my point.

"Philosophy on the nature of god, whether or not god exists, is not philosophy." = my thesis statement.

Did my premises (which followed) reach an end? = that is philosophy conceptually speaking. Can god be dictated whether the premise begins that 'god exists' or god does not exist'.

To ask what is god. The approach to denounce god outright is a lie, lest it be proven. It is an exact contradiction to the purpose or use of philosophy - (i.e. the honest use of what is rational or to be known = seeking truth.) Not seeking truth = is the elimination of god by using god as a purge of your better argument. Example: "Everyone supports this (such and such. . . ) argument = because my belief begins and ends that god doesn't exist. Therefore, everything presupposes god's existence as false." 

- Marco