First of all, thank you for putting the time and thought into your reply. You clearly spent a lot of time on this, and it's obviously not some cut-and-paste from some other post. I really do appreciate the engagement.
Allow me to address your points:
1. You say that the existence of other persons is not empirically verifiable -- but it is! If empiricism has any validity or meaning at all, then the existence of other minds is as empirically verifiable as any other observed fact, unless you're a solipsist, and if you are, then I have no interest in talking to you (because I'm just a figment of your imagination, right?) As for his unsupported assertion that his examples are all "properly basic", well, that's simply wrong. The only "properly basic" idea is that your senses report some event or experience to your brain, and then your brain gets to interpret it, and that the observed sensory input is reasonably accurate (though we are also easily fooled). That's it. We can infer logical conclusions based on what we experience or observe, which is what Science is based on. Plantinga said, plainly, at the beginning of his video, that he believes in god for the same reason you believe in other people. And then he didn't elaborate any further. He's terrible at analogies, apparently, since we believe in other people because we have direct, sensory experience of them (and no, fuzzy feelings do not equate to direct sensory experience). Obviously the belief in other people is not "properly basic" because if you grew up raised by wolves, never seeing a human, you wouldn't believe in humans, you would think yourself to be a wolf (though maybe one who looks different).
A person born with no sensory input to their brain would certainly have no concept of people, or god, or the world, or any other experienced or taught concept, so his idea that these concepts are "properly basic" is patently false.
As for beliefs we hold that are not empirically verifiable, what do you mean? As far as I know, I don't have any unsubstantiated beliefs. Every belief I have has at least some evidence to support it (or is based on scientific principles, which themselves are ultimately based on observation, inference and experimentation), or if it's something trivial (such as my friend telling me what he had for breakfast this morning and me believing him), word of mouth is enough. And if you cared enough, every one of these beliefs should be objectively verifiable if you were willing to put the time and effort into them.
It would be reasonable to not believe in a sun if you were raised in a room with no windows and never told about the sun, because you wouldn't have any evidence of the sun. I don't see how that relates to his belief in god, where there is no evidence (only fairy tales) of god.
2. Perhaps bullying isn't the right term, but he's full of shit anyway. For one thing, you say that he found the "old atheist's" arguments more compelling than the new. Except that he didn't find any of them compelling, or else he would be an atheist. So by this false comparison of new and old, he's able to throw darts at the new guys by saying "not as good as the old guys" while at the same time not buying the "old guys" arguments themselves.
Also, he doesn't support his assertion that the new guys are not as good with any examples or analysis. At least, nothing I've read from him so far does any kind of honest and detailed breakdown of "new atheist" thinking.
Also - you mention "obvious epistemological flaws their arguments contain"...really? Like what?
As for me bullying -- I'm in no position of power over Plantinga. I'm the kid at the side of the road saying that the emperor has no clothes, and that Plantinga's arguments are unsupported and absurd. Is that really bullying? I do agree that my reactions seem kind of over the top, but this is a "first viewing" reaction video, and I was dumbfounded that someone with such a reputation and level of respect could say such obviously foolish things.
3. I'm not hypocritical - a natural process obviously has no "interest" in the sense of mental curiosity or desire. I was trying to use his own phrasing to frame my response, which perhaps was a mistake. My point remains though - "true belief", or a correct apprehension of the situation, is important to survival, which is key to the operation of evolution. Did you not understand that? As for being uncharitable to his use of metaphor - he clearly doesn't understand anything about evolution, and therefore has no grounds to talk about it.
4. I think you're equivocating the use of the term "evolution". There is biological evolution, and then there is the underlying concept of what it means to "evolve". Only biological organisms can participate in biological evolution, but just about anything else can "evolve", in the sense of gradual change over time to adapt to circumstances. Products evolve, ideas evolve, language evolves.
If a "true belief" is the understanding and acceptance of some true fact, then evolution has nothing to do with that one way or the other, except in that the evolutionary process will tend to develop brains that create accurate models of the world (because inaccurate models will lead to invalid predictions and planning, and therefore death).
Belief in god is a cultural thing, and the beliefs themselves evolve over time to deal with cultural shifts. Some gods go out of fashion and die out, some mutate into a new form more palatable by society. A better question would be simply to ask why some people never grow up emotionally and need some kind of perpetual powerful parent figure to take care of them?
You said: "While we would trust our beliefs in regards to the attacking tiger, we would have no reason to trust our cognitive faculty in discerning a philosophical position like naturalism, or an academic scientific thesis. "
Our cognitive abilities are variable and oft-times questionable. Just talk to any creationist - their cognitive faculties are working overtime to try to bend the interpretation of their holy books to match reality, or bend reality to match the holy books. So clearly our thinking is not foolproof. This is why we developed Scientific Processes. The scientific method, if actually practiced, leads towards truth. Observation, Inference, Modelling, experimentation; rinse, repeat. There is no pure cognitive activity that can match this.
5. I would never try to put odds on an individual belief being true. I would accept it as true if it was supported by evidence, or as an extension of some prior knowledge (scientifically derived, of course).
6. Again - I think it's ridiculous to try to put a percentage chance on any beliefs. A belief is true if it's true, and you determine if it's true by observation, experimentation, etc. The scientific method. Until you've verified it, it's just an idea.
7. He is arguing against cognitive facilities functioning at all, if we're based on evolution and not divine intervention? Hello, emperor? Got more clothes for you.
So, let me get this straight. He's claiming that the only way your Cognitive Facilities are reliable is if there is a god. The only way you can see this fabric is if you are worthy.
He doesn't support this assertion by anything other than an embarrassing lack of understanding of the evolutionary process. Awesome.
8. Why would you try to write with a hamburger? Is that what you do? I usually try to eat them, and if I ate a pen thinking it was a hamburger, there definitely would be health consequences, though not as bad as if I believed arsenic was a good coffee whitener. Obviously there is going to be a sliding scale of benefit or harm to acting on any particular belief, be it a true belief or not. You could believe that jogging brings you closer to god, and still benefit from it because jogging is good for you. What is your point?
9. He avoided the question because he didn't support his assertion with anything. If his "supporting statements" crumble under scrutiny, they don't count as supports.
10. Yes, you need cognitive facilities to consider your cognitive facilities. What's the problem with this? It's basically looking in a mirror. You need eyes to see. You need cognitive facilities to think. I don't see your point.
I've tried arguing with idiots before, and the problem is their cognitive facilities are not working well enough to understand when they've been beaten. Not all CF are "created" equal. Again, this is why we invented the scientific method, to make up for the shortcomings of our reasoning.