Atheists’ main argument is evidentialism.
Evidentialism essentially asserts that “there is no evidence for God and therefore there is no reason to believe that he is real”.
However this position starts to look pretty silly when you input other subjective experiences into the same sentence.
For example – “there is no evidence for love and therefore there is no reason to believe that it’s real”.
Clearly this statement is absurd to anyone who has felt love (which is most people) and they would wave it off as myopic and perhaps pathological.
However, I acknowledge that asking critical-thinking people to believe in the stories of the bible is too great of a leap of faith for most people.
In my own experience I first witnessed a series of minor miracles in my own life when seemingly insurmountable problems that had bedevilled me for years simply evaporated when I prayed to God and asked for his help.
When I wholeheartedly believed that God’s love was real I slowly started to take small steps of faith to believe other things from the Bible.
Now that I have seen that Christianity points to divine truth it seems absurd to me that atheists don’t believe in it because “there is no evidence”.
This is because the primary evidence is in the subjective experience.
The secondary evidence is in the objective improvements to peoples’ lives, relationships and communities when they believe in Jesus and practice the way of life that he taught.
In my view atheists have overreached by trying to fill the void in the heart with humanism (or even with scientific knowledge) – it was worth a try but it has failed miserably because it’s not based on truth and therefore not wise.
This is because it’s like a system of people who have a void in their hearts trying to collectively fill each other’s voids – it’s doesn’t work.
Humanity needs God to breath his abundant love into peoples’ hearts and only then can they share it with each other – which is what Christianity teaches anyway (rendering humanism essentially to be a failed social experiment).
As for trying to achieve greater wellbeing from scientific knowledge – that doesn’t really work because people don’t really feel any better from having some knowledge about astrophysics or anything.
Thats’ why I suggest that science should stay in its lane and stick to advancing objective quality of life such as with technology – and leave questions of the heart (such as the meaning of life) to religion.