You seem to be reasoning as if Christianity has a prior high enough to make it worth considering, then basing your atheism on having heard and invalidated the Christians’ arguments. Instead, consider that Christianity is a huge, complex hypothesis with a very low prior, and then update down based on seeing the arguments for it and finding them bad. You can do that because if Christianity were true you’d be more likely to see good arguments, and if it’s false you’re more likely to see bad arguments.
Each individual religion starts off with a prior low enough not to be worth investigating—that’s why you don’t see me finding and engaging Zoroastrians in theological debate. As an upper bound on that probability, there are at least 200 or so religions, at most one of which can be true: 0.5% probability right there, not counting “atheism is true” and “some religion not yet invented is true”. When you investigate a religion and find its arguments bad, the probability goes down from there.
You seem to be reasoning as if Christianity has a prior high enough to make it worth considering, then basing your atheism on having heard and invalidated the Christians’ arguments. Instead, consider that Christianity is a huge, complex hypothesis with a very low prior, and then update down based on seeing the arguments for it and finding them bad. You can do that because if Christianity were true you’d be more likely to see good arguments, and if it’s false you’re more likely to see bad arguments.
Each individual religion starts off with a prior low enough not to be worth investigating—that’s why you don’t see me finding and engaging Zoroastrians in theological debate. As an upper bound on that probability, there are at least 200 or so religions, at most one of which can be true: 0.5% probability right there, not counting “atheism is true” and “some religion not yet invented is true”. When you investigate a religion and find its arguments bad, the probability goes down from there.