Richard Dawkins does an excellent job of building a strong case for atheism by using logic and science in "The God Delusion". He shows the logical fallacies of the so-called proofs of Gods existence. He debunks the myth about religion being the source of morality and ethics, debunks other myths about the immorality of non-believers. He exposes some of the logical inconstancies and errors within the religions themselves. All in all, he does an outstanding job of explaining why atheism is on much firmer ground than any of the major religions.
There are some problems with the book as well, but before I go into those it is important to note that this is definitely a good book for religious people as well as atheists and agnostics to read. It gives a good explanation of why atheists don't believe in a god or gods, and probably deserves an overall rating of around 3.75 stars. So while I will go into some more detail about what I thought was not so good about the book that is merely because it is necessary to be more detailed about the problems than it is to be about the parts which are well done.
The weaknesses of the book all stem from one source, and that is that Dawkins, like everyone, is too close to the subject. It is probably impossible for anyone to take a completely dispassionate look at this subject, as we all have had to deal with various religions throughout our lives. On several occasions, Dawkins ventures out from his base of logic and science to make assumptions which are based only on his thoughts and not facts. For example, in Chapter 10, "A Much Needed Gap" he implies that religious people should be happy when a loved one is about to die, and goes on to imply that because they aren't it is somehow significant in the argument. However, people grieve for a variety of reasons, and not necessarily because they don't truly believe in heaven. As an atheist, I grieve for the absence in my life of a loved one, and there is no reason to believe that religious people don't feel the same sense of loss, regardless of whether they believe that person is going to heaven.
Another example is in Chapter 5 on "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God" where he correctly states that "since we are alive, eukaryotic and conscious, our planet has to be one of the intensely rare planets that has bridged all three gaps", or in short that it doesn't matter how improbable our existence is, because we exist we must have beaten those odds. What he fails to do though, is accept that same argument for the improbability of the existence of God. One could just as easily say that if God exists, that it doesn't matter how improbable its existence is. Of course, we don't have proof of God's existence, but the point is that if we are here because of the existence of a God, then its probability becomes irrelevant. The argument works in both cases, and while it is fair to say that the case for evolution is more probable, that doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.
Probably the worst chapter is Chapter 9 on "Childhood, Abuse and Religion". In this chapter, Dawkins argues that bringing up a child in a specific religion is a form of abuse. However, he really offers no way of solving this supposed problem. Would he have the State take children away and raise them? Would he require that people be at least 18 before they are allowed to attend services? And if so, how would he monitor what the parents tell the children at home? He ignores the fact that everything that parents do in raising their children can be for good or ill. They might spoil them with gifts or be too strict. They might teach them bad eating habits which will lead to health problems. The entire argument is based on emotionalism and is irrational, and it offers no answers. The vast majority of parents do a very good job of raising their children, whether they raise them in a specific faith or not.
Now that I have beat up on the book a little, let me finish by saying once again that despite its flaws, this is a very good book and enjoyable to read. The vast majority of the material is presented in a rational way. Dawkins really grabs the reader's attention, and I am sure that religious people would enjoy debating in their minds the points Dawkins makes just as much as I did. This book is a much better look at atheism and the problems with religion than Harris' "The End of Faith". It is not perfect, but I have no problem rounding "The God Delusion" up to four stars.