In an article posted today on Christian Post, Dan Delzell claims that the atheist's rejection of God-claims comes from a "moral resistence" rather than "intellectual reasoning." This is a retread of the old "atheists know there's a god and are pretending there isn't" argument; it's as false as it is tired.
Delzell correctly notes that "even after all the intellectual evidence is presented, many hearers still choose to reject the Gospel." This, we agree on. His conclusion, however, is that this is a result of a desire on the part of atheists to remain immoral, or something.
He's missing the real reason: that none of the "evidence" is really evidence. All Christians have to offer are personal experiences that cannot be verified and philosophical arguments that can all be refuted. There is not a shred of real evidence that any gods exist.
But of course, Delzell can't comprehend that, because his god doesn't allow him to question his beliefs. He can't examine evidence objectively. God MUST exist, so what he offers MUST be valid evidence. So atheists MUST be rejecting it because they want to be bad people, not because they're just unconvinced by the claims of the religious.
Classic example of an Christian projecting his superstitious beliefs on rational people and ending up dumbfounded (and flat out wrong) about why they're being rejected.