Next, he writes on how much the light, crass, and irrational he found the new atheist crowd to be.

So he never aligned with him.

He said in his experience, they wouldn't even consider the possibility of God's existence and were more dogmatic than

any religious fundamentalist.

I think you may have just hammered the final nail in the new atheist coffin, Bill.

Yes, he's not alone among unbelievers in being disaffected with the new atheist.

People like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krause and

Christopher Hitchens really alienated a lot of unbelievers because of their antics.

Continuing his timeline, he decided not to pursue a career in academia, but did finish his

dissertation, then taught philosophy classes at

Ohio State and other local colleges. And he mentions you next in his testimony, Bill. He

discovered your debates and says that those exchanges did not get to the deeper philosophical

issues that he was aware of. So he wasn't very

complimentary, but I want to hasten to point out, Bill, that his complaints were not warranted.

And I'm not just saying this as your friend and your co-host. His complaints were things

like the Kalam and design arguments not going far enough

to show that God or the God of the Bible was the proper candidate for first cause or the designer.

But it seems that he didn't interact with your work because you've more than addressed his concerns.

And surely he realizes that a debate situation is only a gateway to those more complex issues.

I think that's right.

I was intrigued when you said that he taught philosophy classes at Ohio State because you may

remember that's where I had a debate

...