It's hard to argue using comparisons with stuff like infanticide, because the response to that is not purely emotional - it can always be backed up with a rational (pragmatic) one. I don't burgle anyone's house, kill anyone or abduct their children because I don't want anyone to do that to me, and ideally I want to live in a society where these things don't happen. I don't pick fights with blokes in pubs because I'm not good in a fight and I don't want to get punched. And so on. It's rational.
As for the definition of evidence: David Icke believes he has evidence of the existence of lizards who control the world and of the magical powers of the colour turquoise (or something - forgive me if a do him a disservice but it's along those lines). Are we to accept this without criticism because his evidence doesn't fit my "narrow" criteria for evidence?
I don't expect any of the religious people here or anywhere else to throw up their hands and say, "yes, you're right, I admit it, I renounce my faith." I can't see that ever happening. Most people's faith is far too culturally ingrained for that ever to happen, and it would require a long process and/or an intuitive leap of large dimensions. (Although I do know people to whom it has happened. Not many, I admit.) All I hope for is an admission that this kind of thing can never be "argued" because "faith" doesn't follow the rules of rational argument. Unfortunately, once you admit that, you give up the right to argue.
I feel that's all Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and the other famous atheists really want - just an engagement with some evidence. They do religion the enormous courtesy of treating it as a comparable theory and saying, "the floor is yours, show me your evidence." That is a wonderful opportunity for religious people to fight their corner, and yet it is always squandered with woolly thinking, special pleading and nebulousness.
I think these guys are extraordinarily polite to believers, given what they have to put up with. Yes, even Dawkins. He gives them the time, the space and the opportunity to put their views and he listens to them. His famous "tetchiness" is really no more than the cut-and-thrust of academic debate - he is no more hostile to people of faith than he is to any scientific colleague who has a point with which he disagrees. The difference is, the scientific colleague enjoys the cut-and-thrust of debate on the same elevated level, and can probably offer evidence equally as good as Richard Dawkins's.
It's just that the religious are not used to being questioned and having to fight their corner in this way - they have had centuries, millennia, of blind acceptance. They've had it easy. And now they don't like the fact that rationalism is fighting back.
And, unlike any religion you care to mention, we ain't going away.