I've heard it argued by the religious that authors like Richard Dawkins are speaking from ignorance; that only a theologian could make the informed decision to deny religious propositions (of course the same could be said of most believers of any one religion). If it were a field other than religion, I would agree -- to call theology a field is being charitable. To chastise an atheist for not knowing enough about religion to refute it implies that there is something to know. That there is, in the details, an evidence more potent than the trifling semantics relied upon by the most prominent advocates of religion. Something better than a deity that hides in the ambiguities of words, in the gaps of our knowledge, in drooling awe, in ignorance, or in a specious "necessity." 

I've listened to debates between atheists and the likes of William Lane Craig, John Lennox; arguments from Lee Strobel, Denys Turner, etc. Charity will only let me assume that these are the absolute bottom-feeders of apologetics, for not one of them was able to produce a description of their deity that wouldn't be synonymous with "nothing." It's as though they'd taken the leavings of Occam's Razor, and gone at the world with those scraps and some tape. The transcendental argument (TAG), the ontological argument, the argument from degrees: old, refuted, laughable stuff. An incongruously proud argument for what Nietzsche would have derisively called a ghost, and a spinner of cob webs. 

Surely, we are remiss, because the basis for "informed" belief could not be as stupid as it seems. So out with it. What is the great evidence?