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.

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.

Er, there is zero documented evidence of the resurrection outside of the Bible, which, for obvious reasons, doesn't count. Also, Dawkins (as well as many other atheists) was brought up as a Christian and knows the Bible better than most who claim to believe its contents.

Is there any documented evidence for the 'Big Bang' and that it somehow occurred spontaneously?

There is plenty of scientific, empirical evidence which points to the big bang as the most likely answer to the question of origins. It is obviously a complex topic, as the universe does not owe us a simple answer (in spite of what most religions would have you believe), but the literature is out there should you choose to read it, having been compiled by some of the greatest minds our planet will likely ever see. Funny that there seems to be such a strong correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific truth.

The guy is a grade A c*nt. He forces his opinion on others, he's no better than a Jehovah knocking on your door or one of those loud preachers in your face on Croydon High Street.

F*ck him.