What do believers say when you ask or tell them..

[Ryft]

You say it's not your belief that saves you, but you would not be able to be saved without that particular belief.

Not quite: "you would not be able to be saved without" Christ paying for your sins. Salvation is through having sins paid for. Belief does not pay for sins. (1) Christ paid for the sins of all those who repent and believe. (2) All those who repent and believe therefore have their sins paid for.

Yes, I would say my claim is correct.

TAVARISH: There is no objective evidence to support the claim that God exists.
ARCANUS: Is that claim true?
TAVARISH: Yes.
ARCANUS: On what basis is that claim true?
TAVARISH:

A belief in [God] ... is anything but unbiased, as faith has a strictly personal nature.

True. But then a belief in God is subjective—by definition, for 'belief' belongs to the thinking subject. However (you might not be consciously aware of this), you are conflating belief in God with the existence of God. You must pick one or the other, but not conflate them as being one and the same thing.

Also? "A lack of belief in God is anything but unbiased."

As faith is wholly dependent on personal feelings ...

According to who?

On the Christian view, faith is partly about personal feelings—that's fiducia—but certainly not wholly: notitia is objective, insofar as informational content exists independent of the thinking subject, and assensus is cognitive, which is distinguished from affective (feelings).

If the existence of God was objective, it would, for all purposes, be very self-evident. This isn't the case.

From the claim that God exists objectively (independent of the thinking subject), one cannot reasonably infer that God must be evident to every thinking subject. My coffee cup exists objectively—i.e., indepedent of you as a thinking subject—even though it is not evident to you in any way.

My gripe is that Christians make the claim that God exists objectively and necessarily and has the power to intervene in the physical world, when the claim doesn't hold water when pressed for adequate and objectively verifiable evidence.

If I fail to defend my claim that life exists on other planets, does that mean life on other planets doesn't exist? No, for that doesn't follow (non-sequitur). It does mean you have reason to not accept my claim, but that's quite a different thing, isn't it?

I'm going to assume you don't believe in biblical literalism and don't cite the inerrancy or historicity of such a book.

Probably not, if my hunch is correct about what you think those terms mean. I suspect that inane Christian fundies influenced your ideas about those things, and my views often have little in common with them.

Why would you use a book that is self-validating as a standard of evidence?

It's not my standard of evidence. My standards of evidence are broad and varied, as there are many different types of claims that can be subject to evaluation. However, at bottom of my entire world view lies the fundamental presupposition that the Bible is the divinely revealed Word of God. It is the basic axiom upon which everything else is built. It is not the entire structure itself. And it is my basic axiom because it is the only presupposition which produces a world view that reflects and explains the world as it really is.