Isaac Newton once said "Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." In his day, this was true. The few atheists who existed would rarely admit to holding such a futile worldview. Even on his own, Newton had such powerful arguments that they still hold up in our day.
In spite of the increasing popularity of atheism, this still holds true. Atheism is still senseless and odious, and it still holds the hearts of a very small minority. But as shown in the header image, the increase in their popularity has both decreased their quality of thought while increasing their confidence in their numbers. See how the page boasts that only 30% of the world identify as Christians, 24% as Muslims, and 15% as Hindus. But what does this mean? It means a maximum of 31% of the remaining human population could potentially be atheists. In reality, atheists barely manage to make up 32% of the U.S. (and that's if you include Agnostics and "nones"). Globally, they're not doing much better, with the most recent estimate I can find being approximately 15%.
With such a meagre portion of the world's population, you wouldn't think any atheist would dare to play the numbers game, but weirdly enough, they try. "If the god(s) of just one of these religions was real, you would think it could muster more than 30% of the world's population as followers". Well, if atheism was true, you would think more than 15% of the world would see it by now.
But atheists might attempt to rescue themselves from their own hypocrisy in various ways. "Well, it's a geography thing. If you'd been born in Pakistan...". What if the atheist had been born in Pakistan? "It's how you were raised. If you'd been raised Muslim...". What if the atheist was raised Muslim? "People don't believe evidence". Bingo!
Human beings tend to be quite stubborn. We cling tightly to our beliefs. Many people are willing to die, or even kill, for their beliefs. Changing them is quite difficult. Atheists are particularly stubborn in this area. Evidence isn't enough. There is plenty of it. Many Christians, many of whom are ex-atheists, have seen the evidence for Christianity, and have converted on the basis of it. And even while not being wise enough to become Christians, the evidence for Theism is so powerful, the vast majority of the human race have always been Theists.
Think of it this way: A mud hut is evidence of a human. Why? Because nature doesn't make mud huts. So, imagine you have 100 people. They find a mud hut and start discussing who built it. 30 of them know exactly who made the hut. They've got the builder's journal. 24 of them have a newspaper article about the hut. The newspaper article affirms the journal, but says some very silly things about the builder which the journal itself denies. The 24, however, swear the newspaper article is true, and the journal must have been corrupted somehow. 15 of the people believe the hut was made, but attribute it to many insects, like ants and termites.
Finally, one numpty stands up and says "guys, come on. If anyone really made this hut, you'd think more than 30 of you would know who it was...". What do you think of this person? What if a bunch of the remaining 30 people stood up and agreed with him? Does this position sound reasonable? Does it give off an aura of wisdom? Would you even be surprised if such a person proceeded to stoop down and eat the mud?
This really is the strongest argument an atheist has. To them, only if God shows up to them will He have provided sufficient evidence for His existence. And to some, even this would be insufficient. Madness. Aliens. These are the sorts of things prominent atheist apologists have already admitted they would attribute such an appearance to. Think about that. If even one person thinks this way, any other number of people could. How many? 15%? 24%? Maybe even 70%. If there are people who flat out admit that God could appear to them, and they would rather assume aliens were projecting an illusion into their minds, then God could absolutely exist, and show up to these people, and if they make up any percentage of the human race, then that percentage of the human race will not believe in Him.
Well suddenly this argument seems very dumb, doesn't it? One might say senseless. Odious, even. But sadly, the number of professors is increasing, not because there is no God, not even because God has failed to provide sufficient evidence, but because these people are impervious to evidence. And as time goes on, they are becoming bolder in admitting it.
But what does that mean? What does that make them when they continue to, as Richard Dawkins puts it, "give lip service" to evidence? It doesn't make them skeptics. It doesn't make them reasonable, or wise, or intelligent. It makes them dishonest.
It also makes them doomed, because there are consequences to what we believe. A time is coming when God will not only show up, but remove the option of doubt. As we find written in His word, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord (Romans 14:11). But in this life, there is reward for faith. Not for blind faith, because in spite of what atheists claim, the evidence is quite sufficient to convince a reasonable mind. For those who follow this evidence, eternal life is on the table. Those who confess Christ as Lord, believing in their hearts God raised Him from the dead, will receive eternal life.