I can’t remember exactly because it’s a long time since I read it, but I do recall he worked on the assumption that all Christians took the creation story literally. That’s a hole. Most Christians (in the UK anyway) do not take it literally, and they believe in evolution. The creation story is merely an example/story for people who had no understanding of science before the emergence of the modern age.

There were a lot of assumptions like that, where Dawkins hadn’t actually bothered to find out what Christians do believe. But then again, different groups may have different opinions on that.

It takes as much faith to be 100% confident that there’s nothing there, as to be confident that something is there. Both require faith. Mine is flaky on all accounts and I’m quite happy to admit that.

Someone wrote a book with a counter-argument to Dawkins, which probably tells you what I was thinking as I read through it. I haven’t read it, but you could probably find a copy, if you really wanted to know the counter-arguments in some detail.