Well, lets look at his arguments.
1. He spends quite a bit of time discussing how believing in god is not like believing in santa clause. His argument is fallacious. NO adult believes in santa clause and if one did they would be considered mentally ill. However, many people push the belief that god is real throughout their life. He then said that it was an unfair analogy (myth v myth sounds like a fair analogy to me).
2. He says atheism is a belief system where it is actually a denial of many beliefs system.
3. ‘does wishing something so make it not so has no bearing on whether it is real or not.’ This is very true, however, he totally avoids whether or not there is any proof of god.
4. Concentrates on the meme theory by comparing it with a physical virus. He asks whether all ideas are virus’ of the mind. Dawkins actually touched on this in the book and said that many ideas are indeed virus’ (memes) including oral ideas such as jokes and stories that evolve over time.
5. He discusses other books such as collin’s (whose religion is based on faith) whose ideas are discussed in the god delusion. However, he provides no evidence as to why their views trump dawkins’.
6. How do you interpret nature in a christian way? Either the bible is right and the world was created 6000 years ago or it is wrong and the earth was created over 4 billion years ago. Otherwise you have to pick and choose what you want to believe.
7. He denies that ‘real scientists are atheists’ but never touches on those studies that reveal that most scientists are atheists.
8. He basically calls dawkins an antisemite, which is totally false. I’ve read the book and this is not true. I think he must be talking about a study that utilized israeli children.
9. He says that jesus is all about non violence. Thessalonians 1: In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
10. In discussing history, he touches on the french revolution but never speaks about how it occurred, in large part, because of injustice by the church.
11. He avoids almost all of the evidence that Dawkins puts forward to raise doubt about the existence of god, such as the first cause. He does not talk about the variety of religious belief or many other numerous subjects talked about in the book. He picks out several subjects that do not actually deal with whether or not god exists but how dawkins speaks about religion. In other words, he misdirects the audience by utilizing an ad hominem attack on Dawkins. There are so many fallacious arguments in his speech, I could not keep up with them all. I may read his book, but if all of his reasoning is this circular, whats the point.