Not sure that Dawkins is "out to prove God doesn't exist." I've always been of the opinion that as a scientist he is rightly angry when people stifle scientific advance by weaving in superstition. He is out, if I read him rightly, to say that theological debate has no place in science which is another thing entirely. As a genes specialist, he has demonstrated that it is in the interest of our genes to exhibit what we would call moral traits, which makes the case for excluding superstition from science, as the only feasible reason for taking faith into account is the moral compass that old men in pointy hats claim is their territory. (Funny though, I don't follow them or their ideas, yet I seem to refrain from pillaging, raping and whatever they reckon a Godless society does.)

I share his frustration, but at the same time feel he is becoming embroiled in a rational versus surreal argument. That too can stifle the progress of scientific discovery by being a distraction.

We seem to have created God in our image. Having also given this God character omnipotence and other big cheese attributes, it is a bit vain to then compare him to us? Just one of the reasons I smile indulgently when our evangelical friends start rationalising their wonderful group delusion.