When I read something like this from a Christian apologist, I pretty much stop taking them seriously regarding their thoughts on atheism just as I would stop taking scientific pronouncements seriously if I read "Evolution is only a theory." Both of these serve as litmus tests that indicate a basic misunderstanding of the subject matter, and suggest to me that the author's understanding comes from Christian apologetics sources.
" it is never logically explained, as is done here, that atheism, of scientific necessity, requires belief in an eternal uncreated universe"
Nonsense. I'm an atheist and have no such belief. This is the type of thing we expect from theists that come to their understanding of atheists and atheism only through reading what our detractors say about us, not by speaking with us.
Predictably, the author goes on to argue the old chestnut that atheism is faith based:
"Both religion and atheism represent leaps of faith equal in magnitude but opposite in direction – two mutually exclusive beliefs – each beyond the discovery of reason."
Of course, this straw man depends on his definition of atheist as what many of us would call gnostic atheists or hard atheists - those that positively affirm the nonexistence of gods It also brings to mind this wonderful comment from Amanda Marcotte
“I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out,“Atheism is just another kind of faith,” because it’s a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you’ve succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it’s time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes.”
The author also tries to justify faith by misdefining both it and reason. Here are two definitions of reason he offers:
"[Reason is] the discovery of the certainty or probability of such propositions or truths, which the mind arrives at by deduction made from such ideas, as it has got by the use of its natural faculties…” John Locke
"reason defined as the ability to observe, comprehend and accept self-evident truth."
Both are obviously insufficient. Locke doesn't account for induction, which is as much a part of reason as deduction. Induction is the process of going from particulars to a generalization, as when we organize the numbers 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 into a rule 2n, where n is any positive integer and indicates the elements place on the list (2 is 1st, 6 is 3rd, etc). Deduction is going in the opposite direction, from the general rule to a particular, as when we ask what the sixth element of the list would be, and derive the answer 12 using the rule.
The authors own rule is undermined by his use of the word "self-evident." Much of reason and its output is far from self-evident. Self-evident is reserved for axioms, fundamental laws of reason such as the law of non contradiction, and atomic rules of inference.