First, you should certainly read the rest of the article.

I skimmed through it before I posted, and I did read it right after. I've been debating atheists for almost as long as the internet has been around, and it's for the most part material I've come across quite a few times before.

Secondly, the problem with invoking a character you define as all-powerful like Yahweh is that it means no matter how much the observable evidence contradicts the claims of the Bible, you can just say "well it's true anyways because Yahweh is all-powerful and can make it true even though it doesn't look that way."

Well, first, I'll point out again that it's incorrect for atheists to create a straw man argument for them to knock down, and in the process confuse the issues of truth and validity. That was the point I was addressing.

You write this here:

When I discuss any of this with creationists, either YEC or OEC, I often hear some variation of "Creation scientists and atheistic scientists both look at the same evidence, but through different lenses. One which assumes the Bible is true, and one which assumes it isn't." This is a very interesting case of projection.

That's really just characteristic of any belief (system), even when it's just a single opinion on a matter. You see this all over the internet. Two people with different opinions of anything, and they look at the matter differently and have different assumptions. From Wikipedia on "confirmation bias" (which is apparently what a person's opponent in an argument suffers from):

"Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses."

The first thing people tend to do these days when any of their beliefs are challenged is go to the internet to look for more supporting information. And it makes sense for people to defend their belief systems rather than just to abandon them whenever challenged in any way. There often is more to the story when something challenges their belief system, and most people with firmly held beliefs hold them because they've already considered a lot of evidence over a long period of time, and the evidence they accept have become their assumptions, which we need to have some of. We can't be changing our beliefs constantly.

In what you wrote to me here, these appear to be assumptions you're holding: creationists are "invoking" (rather than merely testifying of what they know) a "character" (an imaginary being) and then giving that imaginary being all-powerful traits.

If Yahweh doesn't exist and Biblical supernatural claims are false, the invention of Yahweh is a pretty much perfect tactic to defend those claims against absolutely any amount of evidence to the contrary.

At the moment I don't have time to discuss all the issues involved here. Maybe I'll look for some links on each and post them. But there are many issues involved here, and they're each like a separate subject in themselves. Briefly, they have to do with things such as people's personal experiences down through the ages of knowing God, some key truths which are revealed in the Bible, and the fact that science will never be able to settle many questions, including the ultimate ones. I believe there are other issues involved here, too, but can't think of them all at the moment.

Something that seems to show the weakness of atheist claims these days is how the idea of Bertrand Russell's "teapot" has been so widely accepted. Part of what you say here sounds like it. In short, it's the idea that the prospect of there being a God is so ridiculous, that it's up to believers in God to show some proof of why our claim that He exists should even be taken seriously as a possibility.

We can compare that to how even non-Christian philosophers through the ages have considered the question of God's existence to be one of the major ones. Many atheists would say that those in ages past lived when we didn't know so much, and so much more is known now, but ultimately, that's not really the case. In terms of the whole picture, the pieces have only just been re-arranged.

And atheists today have a way of dismissing anything outside of certain bounds as irrelevant, non-existent, explained away, and/or something that there will be answers for someday. Like, for instance, the possibilities of us having souls and that there is a purpose for the universe and for us (that is, that there was and is an Intelligent Designer).

If you consider that many people who aren't sure if there's a God or not will say they still feel "spiritual" about things and aren't sure what to make of it, atheists will say, for instance, that this feeling is the product of evolution and has survival value, and in the big picture, people's feelings are irrelevant since they didn't have a part in creating the universe. So atheists fit that into their belief system.