Dawkins points out (caustically) that there is no evidence that religious experiences come from any external source.
1a/ 'the sense of taste is worthless'
1/b 'there is no evidence that taste come from any external source'
... to saying;
2a/ 'religious experiences are worthless'
2b/ 'there is no evidence that religious experiences come from any external source'
1a is opinion, and its worth if bought into question by 1b which is demonstrably false.
2a is also opinion, buts is arguably of worth as 2b supports it
You might not LIKE Dawkins saying religious expience is worthless, but he has clear grounds to do so.
YOU might not be hypocritical for feeling this way.
However, many theists ARE hypocritical to say this as they feel all religous experiences that disagree with their own are worthless.
They criticise Dawkins for feeling exactly as they do about other religions, but wail when their own beliefs are similarly criticised.
Most theists do not believe in 99.9999% of all gods ever believed in.
This means atheists are only 0.0001% different from theists - they simply believe in one god less than most theists.
Yet many theists - hypoctitically - wail if anyone has the cheek not to believe in THEIR god, when they disbelieve in all other gods themselves.
They will refuse to accept other people, maybe in a loin cloth with a bone through their nose, or maybe in the church next door, have valid religious experiences or ideas about god, on the basis of their own religious experiences and ideas about god when, in terms of proof, both sets of ideas about god and both sets of religious experience are as valid as each other.
Can you maybe see why Dawkins gets caustic? When most religious people condemn him for being slightly more thorough than them when it comes to disbelieveing religious experiences, and don't realise the massive double standard they thereby display!
Some fun reading;
hooberus, Those sites misrepresent decent science. You know this. Stop spreading misinformation.