I would argue genetic diseases are a rock solid argument against the existence of an interventionist god but I digress.

Evolution is made up of something like 99% genetic failures & 1% success.

It's the human race's responsibility to fit people with downs & those with other genetic diseases into society until such a time happens then yes it's begs the question of if it is morally the right thing to do or not, certainly it comes down to how much of a good life you can guarantee for that child.

Sex Panther 60% of the time it works every time

I actually agree but the God Delusion is a good place to start IMO.

In my opinion he is a hate filled, frothing at the mouth madman.

Fine, don't believe it, but why spend your life so aggressively demanding others agree with you.

My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs

The funniest thing with Dawkins is how much he actually hates something that he says he does not believe exists.

He also hates the close minded 'non-thinking' of the average religious person and the child indoctrination that occurs in religious families.

As do I.

There are two kinds of person in this world:
1) Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

Well if you would like to stereotype religious people by saying their (non-)thinking is close minded then fine.

Personally I think that labelling people casually in this way is a bit of an obstinate means of making a point, a bit like your stereotype of what you see as the average religious person actually.

And as for indoctrination, I would contest that what a religious parent teaches his/her child is not indoctrination if it refers to their own religious beliefs. I think it's absurd to believe that parents should respond to many inquisitive questions a child might ask which could involve their religious beliefs with "there are many opinions, you have to discover your own for yourself".

That's the sort of attitude that totalitarian regimes looked to promote and remove children from the influence of their families. Every single person has the right to teach their children what they believe if it does not conflict with the law. I believe that atheists should be able to teach children their views. Why should an atheist be more righteous in being separate from the label of indoctrination (as you not I term it). There is no way that one can categorically deny that God exists and started the universe, even as a bland Prime Mover figure. I therefore reject the fact that scientific reason is absolute knowledge and anything which disagrees with that sphere of study is automatically nonsense.

As for Dawkins' hate. I know it sounds ridiculous to you but for things that don't have a full or even partial consensus of explanation within science, I see this as a reason to at least doubt the basic existential analysis of the universe and humankind that Dawkins promotes. I'm referring to the existence of consciousness and its mysterious nature outside the non-starter explanations of neuroscience and chemical reactions.

So-called miracles too which have been investigated by groups like NASA and cannot be scientifically explained. Dawkins uses probability theory that there was a 3000000000/1 chance that X might happen and on this so-called miraculous occasion it did. He relies purely on logic and sticks by it, almost admirably.

The fact that there is reasonable doubt for me does not mean that people should automatically reject science and reason. On the contrary. However, what I do reject is the idea that there is not a reasonable basis, even with science and it's contributions for people to doubt it and form religious opinions even with the extent of the evolutionary and Big Bang theories out there.
It is for this reason that people should be treated with respect and not abused for holding religious opinions. Abuse and hate is small-minded, even if the opponents are just as small-minded.

I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry.