Just how can anyone take this guy seriously?

This was taken from an exchange between him and a Christian scholar.

You asked me how sure I am right. There is no good positive evidence for Chrstianity, of that I'm sure (historical evidence is poor evidence and your God should have known this). There is only negative evidence, known as the god of the gaps. I am so sure I'm willing to risk Pascal's Wager on it. I'm sure in what I deny, that's for sure. I'm not all that sure about what I affirm.

His first error is ignoring, either deliberately or implicitly(evidence suggest deliberate since he said there is only negative evidence), both the quantity and quality of personal experience(anecdotal) and documentary evidence for Christianity, both of those types of evidence along with historical evidence qualify as good positive evidence for Christianity, since both personal experience and documentary evidence are both good enough in court. His second error is the following assertion:

(historical evidence is poor evidence and your God should have known this). There is only negative evidence, known as the god of the gaps. I am so sure I'm willing to risk Pascal's Wager on it. I'm sure in what I deny, that's for sure.

This is obtuse on many levels. Exactly how is historical evidence poor? especially in the face of the fact that virtually every military weapon and vehicle got its origins from some point in ancient history, moreover the intelligent and applicable quotes by people like Santayana "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," and several excellent reasons why we should and why we do study history in the first place.
Perhaps Loftus meant historical evidence is poor in comparison to scientific/empirical evidence, in which I agree, but of course, when we lack scientific/empirical evidence then the other forms of evidence become our only forms of evidence. So in both cases Loftus is being obtuse. Historical evidence is definitely not poor evidence and the comparison of historical evidence to scientific/empirical evidence cannot even be reasonably applied to the subject of God because of the perfectly plausible and expected absence of the latter.
This shows that his self proclaimed 'certainty' of what he denies is (in this particular case but there are many others) based upon ignorance in the concept of evidence(only God of the gaps? seriously?) and Christian theology.