I entirely agree with Janine. I enjoyed the confrontations with Christian and Muslim fundamentalists (and sympathised with Dawkins' inability to argue with them). But the case against religion as such is put with such crassness that by the end I was wondering if the whole effort would not prove counterproductive.
Dawkins basically says that all religious belief is the 'thin end of the wedge' to violent extremism because it is a system of thought based on not thinking.
But religious belief has also, for example and just to take one example, inspired some of the world's greatest works of art. The idea that everything from Bach to Coltrane, etc etc, is only the thin end of the wedge to suicice bombings is simply nuts.
And - so far - Dawkins only attacks religion at its weakest. There are scientists who, without being 'religious' in any obvious sense, argue that there are, for example, peculiar aspects to the nature of the universe - which don't necessarily prove the existence of a creator or anything, but require more of a response than Dawkins gives. Not all religion is stupid people relying on texts.
Part two promises to be Dawkins on religion as a virus, a comment for which he is quite famous.