There are two things that really annoy me about Dawkins :
1 - He clings onto Darwinism more tightly than Evangelical Christians hang on to their Bibles. There was a time when everybody knew that the Earth was the centre of the universe, just because a scientific theory holds right now doesn't mean that's always going to be the case.
2 - As a so-called scientist, Dawkins should use the correct tools to sway people to his viewpoint, things like evidence, reason & logic. But when you call your book "The God Delusion" then reason & logic have gone right out the window and you're not trying to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
I really hope this doesn't come across as offensive. I want this to be truthful and critical but not condescending or mean.
About the half-baked Dawkins criticism (shit, I just blew it, didn't I? But calling him a so-called scientist was going way over the line, in my opinion), there's a critical point being missed here: A truly, dogmatically observant religious believer will almost always ignore the evidence presented against their side of the argument (primarily because something that is irrationally derived is indefensible in terms of empirical evidence), so ultimately if it doesn't mesh with their beliefs, it becomes invalid and that's all there is to it (think of what you'd try to do to argue against the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whether you are religious yourself or not, and you'll see my point).
Dawkins admits that if evidence of any sort to disprove either evolution or his disbelief in god, he will be forced, whether he likes it or not, to accept the evidence and change his mind which, as I pointed out, it not the method observed by those who base beliefs in nonmaterial existences. Also, Dawkins said it IN the God Delusion that he would be horribly presumptuous to believe even a single person would be converted by his book. It is intended for those who are wavering in their faiths to be able to make sense of why they might be slipping and why it might not be such a bad thing, but he doesn't have the attitude that it should then guide them into actual atheism afterwards (he actually considers author Douglas Adams to be his only convert, from a different book he wrote earlier). And I've listened to the audiobook repeatedly over the last several weeks, and there IS evidence presented of both a tangible and philosophical nature contributing to the argument against the existence of deities. If you take the dictionary definition of a delusion you'll see it's actually quite apt even if it offends people. He actually devotes some of the book to how language has this sort of effect in many other cases.
Anyway, for me the bottom line is, if we don't have an all-encompassing explanation of what the deal is with existence and all that, we don't have the right to posit a solution and leave it at that, not without evidence to support it; at best we can say it is our working hypothesis and that we should, in all fairness, be ready to gravitate elsewhere when the experiments prove unfruitful. So to assert this sort of belief is, however benign it may be in practice, rather arrogant and, understandably, makes the non-believer feel that they're surrounded by some rather skewed minds (when in the minority, it does make one a bit tense). The question this raises does seem inescapable: Why, of all the things in life, does this one thing get to slide by with no good explanation, and yet every other thing, from the opinions of the carpenters who built your sturdy, long-lasting shelter to the doctors who save your life when you'd otherwise keel over stone dead, needs so much reassurance from physical experimentation? I've never received a satisfactory answer to this, and for the reasons stated (revolving around the argument lacking any rational basis) I feel like I never will. I could, obviously, be wrong and would be happy to be proven wrong. But I won't hold my breath.
What I would like to ask of any and all believers, if I may, is: If you were to start tomorrow with the mindset of, "I'm just going to go about my business as if I didn't believe a god was there and never had been", would you really be tempted to act any differently, any more or less morally, any more or less concerned about the future, or the past? I was never so devout or indoctrinated as a child and so never felt the need to do this before discarding faith but I just wonder, for those not in that position, is this even a thought you might consider, even if you decide not to pursue it as a trial run? I would venture that it would not only be possible to live life as your normally do, but it would open your eyes to how easy it is to do just that for the everyday atheist; taking a leaf from Dawkins' book, I am aware of how presumptuous this would be, but the message about raising one's consciousness is something that we should all try to be optimistic about.