Well, this is going to surprise you. I agree. Richard Dawkins is dishonest in avoiding debates. Richard Dawkins relies entirely on ridiculing dissent. If he has reasons for what he believes, he is unable to present them. So he resorts to mockery. I wouldn’t be surprised if he were to call one of the people who wanted to argue against him “an unemployable alcoholic who lives in his mother’s basement.”
In fact, many of the people publicly calling themselves “freethinkers” are just as hostile to dissent as fundamentalist christians are. They aren’t freethinkers. Someone who was really a freethinker would think for himself, come to his own conclusion, and accept that other people do the same and yet might not agree on the conclusions. I do not need to insult or mock anyone just because he disagrees with me.
Now, some people might think that I just claimed never to mock anyone. Although that would be a great ideal, I do not achieve such a feat. I have been known to throw people’s mockery back in their faces (itself a form of mockery.) And I mock those who try to silence dissent. But I do not mock people strictly for disagreeing with me. That is a tool for those who have little confidence in their beliefs but want to give the impression that they are sure.