If I didn't know any better, I'd say that a child wrote this article. There are several subtle mistakes in it, and the statement that atheists are simply upset because they didn't get something sounds like an example a child might use. Not to mention the "barber" analogy, and the cherry-picked examples to 'prove' that God exists.
The barber analogy is especially bad, but that doesn't justify not responding to it, because it seems plausible if you don't think about it very hard. First, it relies on a false comparison, namely that a barber, who you can independently verify the existence of, is comparable to God, who nobody can independently verify the existence of. For example, a barber advertises himself to others so as to get business. Even if some of that advertisement is done through others (word of mouth, or paid advertising), you can still track down the actual barber and determine whether he exists or not. You can't do that with God.
For example, let's say that people kept telling me about this great barber who did the best haircuts ever. But when I asked them how I could find him, they couldn't tell me where he actually was, instead telling me that I simply had to have faith that he existed and then I would eventually find him. Doesn't do me a lot of good for getting myself a haircut.
Second, it uses another false comparison, that the man with long, unkempt hair who hasn't gotten a haircut is like a nonbeliever who hasn't found God. The man can see the barbershop, even go inside and talk with the barber, without ever getting a haircut. It's a little difficult for a nonbeliever to do the same with God.
