I would submit that what is "reasonable" is an "evolving" phenomenon and also a bit subjective. A lot of it comes from your "frame of reference". What you said earlier could apply to a few believers like Hugh Ross, even though it probably would not be typical for your average believer.
In terms of reason-ability of atheistic approaches I think they can seem to be very strong "Coming out of the gate" when people hear what sometimes seems like nonsense from the theistic side growing up. But it's velocity significantly slows down if you really think about the models, and all the stuff needed to verify them. At some point you really need "Faith" to buy into them (You need an ideology to nullify what should give you cognitive dissonance)
I would also just point to so many atheist presentations themselves, which often are 70% critiques of the things they find flawed in the Bible, Christianity etc. rather than strength of their science. (This sort of thing seems to me be to point that is just a battle of ideology like what is found in polarized political debates and not really about discovering the truth). I.E. you win the debate more by trying to make the other side look bad than by the merits of your side.
From what I can tell a Deistic, demiurge, architect, watchmaker (one that created the universe but is not really so "personal" with His Creation) is the easiest of all positions to support and defend. That sort of things is no Flying Spaghetti Monster strawman, but actually fits the most Occam's Razor explanation you could ever hope for.
Edited by Addai, 10 October 2013 - 01:20 PM.