Blanko, Dawkin's does not really lecture people on the absurdity of their beliefs. He is usually quite clear that he personally finds them absurd, but that he does not hold others to that. He constantly pushes his deeper agenda of encouraging rational thought free from cultural bias, as much as possible, and based on evidence. That people take this as a cue to lecture others on what is right and wrong is not his fault. I am not going to pretend that Dawkin's does not become adversarial or confrontational at times, but it is always in the context of an arranged debate, and is just part of the schtick of those. I saw him on some Scandanavian talk show with the lead singer of the Killers, a Mormon, and Dawkin's opened with the usual criticism of Mormonism; the Killers singer then had to leave to prepare for a song, and Dawkin's who thought that he was there to debate the man, instantly was genuinely apologetic and contrite about the situation. It was evident that Dawkin's wanted the discourse and merely acting as a provocateur for an interesting debate, and I think most of his comments are in this light. Except when he is dealing with people who have poorly conceived viewpoints that are used to attempt to cow him. Then he usually tears them a new one.
In the end, I am not sure why Dawkin's should have to temper or modify a laudable point of view because some fucktards take it as their license to be self-righteous.