I wish I could just commit some of his talking points to memory. I started asking people who say they just can't accept that this world popped into being without a creator (never taking into account that evolutionists don't claim it popped into being), why they can accept that a "creator" with the knowledge and intelligence to create this world just popped into being.
From the mormons you get, "well, he didn't. He had a creator and that creator had a creator and there is no beginning and no end."
From the evangelicals you get, "God always was, he had no creator and he didn't pop into being."
And either of those responses is supposed to be intelligent or make sense? You just want to say, "would you listen to yourself? your minister or profit or whatever, might have taught you those cute little buzz words, but what are you really saying? THAT makes no sense--way way way less sense than evolution or the big bang or anything else." But because that's what they were taught to say, they hate it when you make them think about what they are saying or explain it. Because they can even see how idiotic it is.
He was talking about reviewers of one of his books saying Harris did not answer the oft-repeated falsehood about the endgame of atheism being Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot even though he had answered it in the book and in other places.
It reminds me of the way Mormons dismiss ex-Mormons as "offended" by some member even though the former member has repeatedly cited unanswerable doctrinal and historical conflicts. There were trite dismissals of Simon Southerton's DNA issues with the Book of Mormon repeated again and again by Mormon defenders as well.