I really dislike Dawkins quite a lot. Someone brought an issue of strawmen: that's exactly what Dawkins does.
He's also extremely selective with evidence and tries hard to argue that theists who do bad things do so most often because of religion, but that atheists who do bad things don't do so because of their lack of belief. Ahem, Dawkins, it's nowhere
near that simple. There is also a sort of a 'cult' developing around him, which I find extremely ironic.
One thing that bothered me to no end was his non-interview interview of Rupert Sheldrake. Sheldrake, by the way, is a huge animal lover, a vegetarian, and someone who left the pharmaceutical industry in disgust because, as he says, it deals in death of animals, not life.
However, Sheldrake also controversially believes that there is a scientific base for telepathy and that it is natural, not supernatural. Sheldrake has actually used this to argue that telepathy is a natural communication method among the animal kingdom, organised by a sort of a field phenomena.
Although Dawkins in the past gave conflicting opinions about this topic, he decided finally that it is too close to religion and decided belief in telepathy must be weeded out of people, much like religion, and using the same type of propaganda and selective evidence. Look here:http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html
Overall, I dislike his tactics to the extreme. I think that Dawkins misses the point in that any sort of extremism or fundamentalism is bad, whether or not it is attached to religion.
Sam Harris, indeed, is far more composed and gives a better and less naive overview of troubles with organised religion. He, however, falls in some of the same pitfalls, particularly in trying to 'explain away' the 'evils' that were committed by atheists. Overall, though, End of Faith is a far more serious and less juvenile book than the God Delusion, and I have no idea how the latter became the 'in' thing to read over the former.