The unfortunate part about discussions about belief systems or the absence of same is that they often become polarised.

The notion that Dawkins must publish his own "beliefs" grounded in science or not, is no different to a zealot purporting that "faith" is a true belief system.

I get concerned as to why someone has to disprove the existence of a deity.

Whilst one rationalises that proof in the scientific environment enforce a belief or theory it still becomes a belief system for some, that the only way something can be right is through scientific evidence.

Rather than spending time on how one belief system is right, others, perhaps he could spend time on how they could live harmoniously? Or would he need evidence that it could work before the hypothesis was tested?
(and using my own assessment I respect totally his right to his beliefs and opinions )

One day I'll pick up the abridged version...........