He's claiming that if one draws up a list of things that Dawkins considers evidence for the existence of God, and another list of things Dawkins considers evidence for atheism, one list has nothing on it and the other list has everything else.
Strawman: Dawkins does not consider there to be proof for atheism, simply that there is no proof for God.
After all, a genuine atheist must interpret such an event as a temporarily inexplicable hallucination, or a sudden psychotic break, or a clever technological trick - in short, as anything but evidence that atheism is false. (An atheist who questions the truth of atheism is ceasing to be a genuine atheist precisely to the extent that he is asking himself a genuine question).
Fallacy - No true scotsman. see http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#scots If we are allowed to re-write the dictionary we can win any argument.
Now Dawkins will object that he, unlike the religious believer, is committed to the methods of "science," and will therefore change his mind when evidence refuting his beliefs appears - but it just so happens none ever has.
RAmen! One of the few statements that I agree with.
What, for Dawkins, would constitute evidence of God's existence?
What, for Campos would constitute evidence of God's existence? This article is full of baseless assumption and no proof is offered. Dawkins has given examples of evidence which would contradict his worldview and make him reconsider his opinions. Rather than offer proof, the author is attacking Dawkins character.
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?
Epicurus