Something that I would definitely include is the fact that Richard Dawkins contradicts himself in this book. In other writings, he has said that moral values do not exist:
The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. [...] In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
-
The River Out of Eden, p. 131-132, emphasis added
In the same book, he also said this:
This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous – indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.
Here, Richard Dawkins says that evil and good do not exist, yet he constantly makes moral judgements in his other books, even though he would have no foundation for this. He also says that moral values could have arisen by evolution, but if they did, then they would have no meaning because natural selection decides what causes a species to survive, not what is right. So, for instance, the fact that humans consider cannibalism to be bad is meaningless, since the Mormon cricket and lobster don't seem to have a problem with it. After all, if we're all animals, then what makes us any more significant than a cricket or lobster? Our intelligence? Then would an A.I. be more valuable than a human because it's more smart?
This detail should easily discredit a lot of content within the God Delusion. Writing about the absurdity of life without God should also help. If there's one thing I learned about humans, it's that we, unfortunately, go for emotional appeals before logical reasons and the social effects of a belief before it's truth. This should also be put in. Too many times do I see apologists on either side ramble about the social effects of the other. This is meaningless. By this logic, we should discredit the scientific work of Mendel because it led to Eugenics. In simpler terms, it's the fallacy Appeal to Results of a Belief.
I agree with you that apathy is a very big problem. I know many people who simply do not care about religious matters because they don't see it as important. However, knowing the true scope of things, I find it unavoidable. I even get disturbed sometimes when I'm watching a TV show and they bring up these matters, because then I think "all of these characters are going to die and live meaningless lives" when I'm supposed to be focusing on the explosions and sword fights. I remember once I was reading a book that involved a kid having a religious struggle trying to decide between Christianity and Norse paganism. Hmm... On one side we have a pantheon of warlike dieties who fight each other all of the time and glorify violence, an afterlife determined by how you die (and your social position), and an apocalypse that leads to the utter destruction of everything. On the other side, we have one loving Diety, an afterlife decided by simply accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, and an apocalypse where we all get judged and the good get eternal life. Now, he still has these struggles after he sees Heaven. I guess the fact he's in 8th Century England so he wouldn't have as many schools of philosophy might have something to do with it. Either that, or the author wants to set up a "religious struggle" that people can relate to, but making it alien so anyone could relate to it.
Well, that was a random rant. I'm going to try and regulate my rambling from now on. I'm even worse in real life. In short, focus on the Absurdity of Life Without God and that little contradiction on Dawkins' part.