Okay, I mean no disrespect for Richard Dawkins, who is obviously very smart. But it's pretty clear that he's using correlation to represent cause and effect. Though we all fall into this mistake sometimes, Mr. Dawkins is smart enough to have known better.
I'm sure you've all been mad in the past when someone assumes a cause and effect that you know plain well isn't proven. Country music and suicide, video games and violence, etc. You all know what I'm talking about. And admit it, it makes you mad when someone "pulls a Dawkins" on something you believe in.
Does religion actually cause all the bad things he accuses them of or do they merely correlate? To answer this question, we must ask the following:
1) Do human beings do bad things less when they don't believe in God?
We know the answer to this question. Human beings are fundamentally bigoted and violent and it takes a lot of effort to over come this. There will always be people that attempt to justify their pre-existing bigotry via religion, just like there will always be atheists that do via some other way.
Atheists like Stalin (and I'd include Hitler) are examples of how those that don't believe in God are capable of much great atrocities then those that do.
Take a look at the excellent article by Orson Scott Card that I feel undermines Dawkin's points entirely. (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2002-04-15-1.html)
Card points out that our evolutionary cousins, the primates, practice war and bigotry as well. It's in the genes, my friends. Religion is not the cause. Indeed, many people actually over come it via religion. (Though that isn't he only way to overcome it.)
Dawkins should have understood this. Indeed, it's hard to believe he doesn't. Thus it's hard to not see Dawkins as prejudice and bigoted in his attacks on people of faith.
In other words, he's a fundamentalist atheist - only he really is as bad as people claim fundamentalist Christians are. Being prejudice against other people, even in a nice way, does not make you less prejudice. The only way to be not prejudice is to admit that the correlations he finds might not be a cause and effect. But to admit this would undermine his attacks, so we'll not see him do this.