I think the real problem with [Dawkins] is that he has never really been challenged publicly by someone his equal in propounding their beliefs

Well, it depends on what is meant by 'his equal'. To me, while some of his scientific writings are excellent, and his ability to popularise it is very high, when he comes to debating, his a*hole status (choose your preferred spelling) really comes to the fore. He uses no end of logical fallacies and other debating skill tricks that may be entertaining and persuasive at a superficial level but tend to leave me thinking 'Oh, come on, Dawkins - you know there are better arguments that that!'

For example, he often chooses to floor fundamentalist Christians by saying has they been born 2500 years earlier they would have argued as passionately for Zeus. I have yet to hear an opponent respond "Of course I would, yes. The concept of partial revelation is not obscure. What is your exact point?" Instead, they tend to collapse in a heap, because they are not as good at debating, not because his point is unassailable.