Apparently, when David Robertson is asked to back up his beliefs if he wants his ideas to be accepted, he has a meltdown.

 https://www.solas-cpc.org/what-to-say-when-someone-asks-for-proof-of-gods-existence/

“There isn’t enough evidence.”

It seems so reasonable. It’s what any sensible person would ask. Where is the evidence? Why should it be so difficult to believe in Christ?

Probably because you hitched your wagon on a dead Jew that other Jews disown. Now to set snark aside

Hard core atheism, the belief that there is no God (anti-theism), is difficult to defend

1. Anti-theism isn't the mere lack of belief in a deity, it's the active hatred of the idea of a deity. They aren't the same, being conflated because it's the natural conclusion to oppose a deity in a world where the vast majority of those who support the God Hypothesis aren't sensible or reserved like deists, but religious people who want to use this deity as a way of asserting their moral beliefs on other people, at best guilt tripping family members with paranoia about hell.

2. The atheist position is rather easy to defend. In a world that has order, it is easy to point out that said order arises from entities acting within their own nature (such as gravity affecting bodies to form solar systems). Asserting that there needs to be a deity is just adding a new layer for little real benefit. At most, the argument from first cause tries to assert that there is a deity because there needs to be a first cause; the common retort is then what caused God, the theist counter is that God is noncontingent, and from there it is seen that the only real thing that needs to exist for a first cause is something noncontingent, which could just as well be a force similar to gravity or electromagnetism, and is more logical to assume that since these forces are observed while a magical person has not been observed. At most, this force would be "weird", and calling that thing a deity for simply being weird would be to water down the definition of divinity to "anything people consider odd." Essentially, atheism is easy, it's basically looking at the world, how it operates, and not trying to overcomplicate things.

so the new softer, friendlier atheism defines itself as “we would believe in God if there was enough evidence”.

 This is, of course, assuming that the only people who could be convinced are the "polite ones" while the "rude ones" are a lost cause. Again, pretty sure much of the anger is from the confounding factor of "Our god needs you to bow, pray, submit, and become a bride of Christ or you will burn!"

 Most of the atheists you will meet are in reality agnostics (no-knowledge). It seems reasonable and humble to admit that we do not know.

This is going to sound very New/Reddit Atheism of me, but it needs to be mentioned that this is ignorant of the Scale of Theistic Probability (specifically the Dawkins formulation of it).

Basically, it's a scale of 1-7, 1-3 being theism of various certainty (1 being absolute conviction, 2 being reasonably sure, and 3 being unsure but leaning on theism) 4 being agnosticism, and 5-7 being atheism of various certainty (5 being unsure but leaning to atheism, 6 being secure that atheism is true, and 7 being "hardcore" atheism that the article posits). 

What this means is that David is trying to say that these people have no knowledge, perhaps out of misunderstanding or perhaps to make atheists seem weaker than they are, but the atheists he describes here aren't the no knowledge of 4 but 5 at minimum. It acts like if we can't tear the universe apart then we have to give credence to the idea of deity when it's tenuous, less than obvious. It would require more unfounded assumptions to say that something exists and is hiding than to posit that the human mind had a pareidolia moment and perceived a deity where there wasn't one.

This softer position says I do not know because there is not sufficient information. I can’t prove there is no God and you can’t prove there is. Provide me with the information and of course I would believe. This position is best summed up by Bertrand Russell’s statement that if he met God and was asked why he did not believe he would declare, “Because you did not provide enough evidence”

Still a bit of a false equivalence in the "neither of us can prove anything" angle. Again, until God can be bothered to show her face, the existence is consequently equal to nonexistence, and we would just have to assume there was a deity anyway, in spite of the lack of evidence, need to exist, or reason to give something credence for any reason beyond "possibility."

Perhaps apathy is the predominant thought here. Many of your friends do not lie on their beds at night pondering the meaning of life and suffering from existential angst. They are far more concerned about the game they just watched, the bills they have to pay, and their next visit to the doctor. Normal life for them does not involve God.

Yes, it's not that you want people to just believe you despite a lack of evidence, they're just apathetic. Whenever people insist that crimes need prosecution, it's not that they don't wan the state to legitimize the infringement of rights on questionable grounds, they just want to protect criminals. Whenever someone asks for proof, it's not that people need to back up what they assert, it's that other people are mean and evil and smelly. Because revelation/revolution over all else is what truly matters.

Also, you admit that God doesn't do anything and get upset that people then point out a God isn't really necessary to explain much.

So just as in the film Jerry Maguire, when Cuba Gooding Jnr asks Tom Cruise to “show me the money”, so our atheist/agnostic friends make this seemingly innocuous demand: “show me the evidence”. Even today I came across an atheist writer in a local newspaper, proudly asserting that we should not have Christian schools because we should only teach children facts based on evidence and Christianity is not based upon evidence. So how do we respond to this? Let’s talk about pride and prejudice.

This sounds like an appeal to motive. It sounds like instead of actually focusing on the point you want to complain about people being entitled for wanting an explanation as to why they need to drop everything and start acting subservient. It sounds like you want to demonize people wanting confirmation before adopting life-changing beliefs by calling their demands the "seemingly innocuous" ones. And in order to do so, he cherrypicks an example of an atheist wanting school to actually focus on stuff that's true instead of schools that have a bias.

Pride.

Behind this seemingly humble and reasonable request there is actually a vast amount of pride.

Conjecture

Behind this seemingly objective and informative article there is actually a grating amount of conjecture.

The trouble is that the person making this claim assumes they are in the position of being able to judge the evidence.

 Ignoring that this usually leads to an appeal to ignorance, what actual reason is there to assume that the evidence is out of comprehension?

They assume they have the neutrality, intelligence and ability to assess whether there is a God or not.

Appeal to bias aside, why would it not be discernable? What reason is it there to not be? Because it's incomprehensible? Why would it be incomprehensible, why can't it give some type of indicator of some features, like a "I don't know what it is, but it's definitely red" type of deal? Unless it's "incomprehensible but in a distinctly divine way" why must we assume divinity? Where's your neutrality, intelligence, and ability to assess whether this hypothetical entity is a deity for any reason more than "because it could be"? Why can't it just simply be weird?

They have, in effect, positioned themselves as the judge of The Judge.

And now it's just circular. In your article trying to defend Christianity's truthe you say it can't be questioned because doing so upsets God. This is circular reasoning.

“I will not believe in a God who does X, Y or Z”, is a common claim.

And do you actually think about it or just get offended on God's behalf. 

So the first question I simply ask anyone who demands evidence, is why they think they have the capacity to judge any such evidence?

And why should I not? We've just been over this.

You cannot see God without humility.

 Pretty sure you can't see God without pareidolia.

To be serious, you're argument is essentially, "change the way you see the world and see that I'm right." Again, why should I?

 It is only when we kneel at the cross, rather than flying over it at drone height, that we are able to see where love and mercy meet.

To use a biblical term, I'm pretty sure that's eisegesis, where people perceive this wood as being love and affection because it looks like a piece of wood some doomsday cultist was killed on.

That is why Bertrand Russell will not be standing on the Day of Judgement accusing God; he will be kneeling at the name of Jesus, astounded and ashamed that he was so blind.

David, when you type that out, did your keyboard get sticky, or did you have the decency to do all your happy time into a sock?

I don't care if I made a masturbation joke in the middle of an article, David made it clear that he wants to break the pace in order to write out short power fantasies. When in Rome and all that.

Prejudice.

Very often, the person who demands evidence has already made a pre-judgement that there can be no such evidence. It’s a bit like arguing with a conspiracy theorist.

Yes, why strengthen your own beliefs and provide something for people on the fence? Atheists you're talking to are universally disingenuous, none curious, and none able to be convinced. Just kill them all, for their souls are already lost.

No matter what you say, it is automatically dismissed, because it is perceived as being part of the conspiracy!

And here the analogy descends from superficial to outright slanderous, acting like atheists are the conspiracy theorists when, if we even need to start calling each other paranoid,  religious people and Conspiracy Theorists are the ones trying to add something new to established information in order to assert their own agenda.

 I have often found that if you answer a particular problem, or provide a particular piece of evidence, the person you are answering immediately turns to something else and just avoids the issue. 

I'm to trust that this isn't bias, that you didn't just make another dumb point with another hole, for what reason exactly? Because somehow you're too whipped by Jesus to be biased?

 In order to overcome this prejudice and to avoid wasting a vast amount of time arguing about such vital issues as whether Noah walked to Australia to get kangaroos, I would simply suggest the following: ask anyone who demands evidence, what evidence is it that they would accept for God?

For one thing you can stop trying to handwave away inconsistencies about the stories if you want me to take them seriously.

Honest atheists like Richard Dawkins admit that there is almost nothing that would convince them of God.

Yes, those are the honest ones, because they fit your definition. 

If a giant finger was to write in the sky, “I exist”, they would find some alternative way of explaining it.

Given everything else so far, it would more likely be some type of hoax.

And what's funny is that even in this strawman, the giant finger saying "I exist" is supposed to prove a deity when we don't know who the "I" is referring to. Could it be Satan trying to find followers for the endtimes? A time traveler pulling some quantum bullshit to appear as God? Mustakrakish? We're already looking for the supernatural, why stop at one version?

Anything other than believing in an almighty personal Creator.

You mean the one that requires the most assumptions? Like short of polytheism, the religious view of God requires assumptions about motivations and plans. Even the deist idea of God, for all of it's exaggerations, at least doesn't assume that the creator wasn't more than bored and made the world as a watchmaker.

When the Big Bang was proven and it became clear that the universe did indeed have a beginning, as the Bible stated, some atheists were so desperate to avoid the obvious implications that they refused at first to accept it (and afterwards quickly ran off to place their faith in the unproven multiverse theory).

Hold on, why does multiverse theory need proof while a deity doesn't? At least multiverse theory has math. Also, the big bang theory can also be the God Brahmin from Hinduism making the world from a lotus, given the expansion. Also "obvious implications" as if a creation event means the dead Doomsday Jew actually could perform miracles now, for reasons.

Their philosophy is what I call ABG-ism (Anything But God). It is not so much that they believe there is no evidence for God, but they are emotionally driven by their desire that there should be no evidence for God.

Yeah, because the need to explain something doesn't mean we go with wacky stuff. We don't know who Jack the Ripper was, but he definitely wasn't  Grover Cleveland.

I was blind but now I see.

In reality the situation is even worse than that. When you ask people to believe and trust in God, it is like asking a blind person to admire the intricacies of the Mona Lisa.

More like asking a blind person to see a face in a stone.

You are talking to dead stones and asking these stones to dance.

Starting to get that feeling.

You are calling out to those who are dead in sins and trespasses, to come to life.

Ask the Pharoah, it's your God who hardens hearts.

It’s enough to make any self-respecting evangelist, preacher, Christian give up in despair.

Weird, I once again know this type of sentiment. Not from people refusing to give credence to something tenuous, but I do get the feeling to just being bombarded with stupid people. If David could just limit himself to legitimate flaws in secular humanism it would be fun to talk to him.

Except for those who know their God and his Bible! Because the Bible itself tells us that the word of God will not return to him empty, and that the Holy Spirit takes the word and enables the blind to see and the dead to live. The word preached and lived in the Dunamis (power) of the Spirit is dynamite!

Know what? Keep the hope, humanity is dead set on taking the neutrality of the world and turning it into sheer hopelessness. Not like I can get you to drop it anyway. 

Does this mean that there is no room for evidence?

Of course not! The Holy Spirit always uses means. He usually addresses the heart through the mind, not the other way round.

Yes, just ignore all the testimony about Jesus saving people in their darkest moments.

Therefore we should patiently present all the evidence that he gives us with the prayerful desire that he will take this and work in the lives of those we deal with.

Yes, because God loves her children. Not enough to show up while they're still impressionable and leave a lasting memory, instead choosing to leave them with hacks like David. But sure, hopefully God will deal with them, for the sake of the Good People™.

For most people, coming to faith in Christ is not a Damascus road experience. It is not one gigantic leap up Mount Improbable, but rather an evolving faith over a period of time, with the Holy Spirit using a number of factors, including evidence, experience, the Bible, coincidence, friends, foes and family.

Damn, we just going mask off in the same paragraph as "addresses the heart through the mind"? I knew it was a stupid point, but did you really have to just fall from "Christianity is logical!" to "logic is one of many factors in conversion."

I often tell people that they should use the motto of The X-Files – ‘the truth is out there’. An intelligent agnostic is someone who seeks that truth.

Yeah and the truth seems to be "not God." Many phenomena we conflate as one thing, and that one thing being God, but no real reason to assume that anything "out there" is as much as an intelligent lizard, let alone your specific deity.

A loving Christian is someone who seeks to present that truth. At the end of The Dawkins Letters I presented my 10 different reasons for believing that Christianity is true. The creation, the human mind and spirit, the moral law, beauty, religion, experience, history, the church, the Bible, and Jesus. Why not make your own list?

Let met guess, reliance of superficial similarities, "plot holes" more than anything, anecdotal evidence, assuming that beauty is more than just in the eye of the beholder, and a little bit of crackpot history.

In today’s Christian world we are blessed with a significant number of books that intelligently, attractively and insightfully present the evidence for Jesus Christ. My recommended book this week is Josh McDowell’s New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. It’s lengthy, but it contains a wealth of information.

 https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Josh_McDowell

Given the mythicism links in the article, it's likely that this guy's taking the approach of "Jesus existed like the Bible said, and the Bible said he's God, so he's God" which ignores cult leaders and Muhammad existing.

Christians who seek to present the good news of Jesus Christ will be prayerful, loving people who are saturated with the word of God and who know how to present it in the context of a culture which is deaf, dumb and blind to that word. If we do so, we will not just be presenting the evidence, we will be the evidence.

"Loving people" yeah just insult a bunch of people, real loving. "We will be the evidence" you have all the flaws of it if that's any consolation.

Edit: In hindsight, the section of prejudice is just an easy way of trying to prevent atheist from defending themselves. It's basically a way of saying atheists aren't allowed to poke holes in Christian belief.

Edit 2: His point about atheists believing in anything besides God and this being prejudice is flawed it's more likely that something is weird but closer to (if not just outright) scientific principles, while he immediately resorts to not only the new (scientifically, culture is just human speculation) concept of a deity immediately to preserve not just the vague notion of a God but his God, the Christian one specifically. He's the one prejudiced, and he's expressing this by getting Occam's razor wrong.