I never said he claimed to be that, but that his fanboys view him as such. Like he's some great leader, but he's just a man as fallible as anyone else, and is no more right than anyone else. He doesn't have any greater knowledge of existence than anyone.
I doubt any of his fanboys make those supernatural claims about him either, so the point stands about the quality of the comparison with Jesus.
I'd agree he doesn't have infallible insight into existence--nobody does--but he is far more knowledgeable and has given far more thought into the supernatural, religion, and existence than 99% of people. In that regard he does have a greater insight, and his opinion and thoughts should carry more weight than the musings of a random person or the majority of the masses who are not as informed.
The interesting thing (and I think what you're getting at) is that that alone doesn't guarantee he is correct. After all there are people very knowledgeable about many different religions who have formed the opposite belief. They can't all be right, and it is possible that Dawkins is wrong despite his erudition. With complex systems this happens often where perfectly reasoned and rational positions in human models don't come even close to matching reality because assumptions are subtly incorrect, causal influences are unobserved, or important variables omitted from models. At this point we're getting deep into the epistemological question of "what can we know and how?", and I'd guess that the answer to the question of existence is something we'll never have conclusively.
Almost all human groups seem vulnerable to forming cults of personality, so there is a similarity in that regard. But he certainly never claims to be a literal deity and the son of God or claims to have supernatural powers. That is a pretty big distinction that makes the comparison disingenuous in my opinion.