Coming late to the thread, I'll make a series of assertions which agree with some of you and disagree with others (sorry) while trying to move the discussion forward a bit:
Dawkins is abrasive, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong, just that his teaching style will alienate some listeners.
Dawkins is (nevertheless) wrong when he falls into the (typically militant-Western-atheist) habit of tacitly equating religion with monotheism and describing arguments against monotheism as arguments against religion. (I note that he did explicitly say, once, that he was not talking about Buddhism - but I am sure that he did not repeat that caveat often enough to remind himself, and his audience, that some religion is not monotheism.) Tamas Pataki does exactly the same thing in 'Against Religion'.
Dawkins is right in a lot of his criticism of religion. Any belief system that rejects or denies the conventional truths discovered by the physical sciences is an obstacle to both commonsense learning and to enlightenment. 'Creation science', one of Dawkins' pet hates, falls into that category. (HHDL has supported what I'm saying here, saying that where Buddhist cosmology conflicts with Western science, Buddhist cosmology must step aside in favour of more accurate knowledge.)
Dawkins is wrong when extrapolates from that to say, in effect, that anything the physical sciences don't know or can't know is illusory and irrational. Subjective experience is the real locus of Buddhism and it is outside of Western science (however much some people try to say that Buddhism is scientific) but not necessarily irrational or illusory.
Monotheism looks very wobbly. Dawkins' criticisms do (mostly) apply, and belief in any interventionist deity is inconsistent with belief in science.
Buddhism still looks good. Most of Dawkins' criticisms of religion don't really touch it, but we may need to abandon some of the peripheral parts of Buddhist lore.