Atheists whine if they don't get the advantage

Atheists whine about not getting the advantages. I've notice this before that they seem to consider logic an unfair trick. They resent God arguments because they think they are being somehow hatted by apologists saying "this is not logical" then think we manipulate lgoic to support our views. The actually like real argumentation is a trick.

Backup:

Is Christianity incapable of defending itself on a level playing field?

I used to think that there was some sort of equality about debating Christians on their on turf. But now I realize it is not particularly challenging to fight in the minor leagues even if you have a handicap. What is the point? There is nothing to learn. Almost all Christian forums, blogs, and YouTube channels are rigged so that any challenge to there position is ignored or deleted. Christian talk radio is designed to stifle or misrepresent counter arguments.

The simple fact is, Christianity cannot survive open debate. The vast majority of open forums are dominated by atheists because it it so easy to fact-check anything these days.

Question: Is anyone aware of a Christian apologist who can handle his or her own without the handicap of a stacked deck? The closest I am aware of is William Lane Craig in the formal debate arena. And that is an embarrassment to atheists everywhere who continually fail to prepare for his handful of tricks (namedropping, claiming scientists don't understand philosophy, etc.)

 Quite Ironic because when I debated this guy: he went by the name "Blondie." he whined until I brought in an atheist to judge, givin myself a huge disadvantage because he said any Christan board would be unfair (he reufsed to go on carm so we went on my boards on the proviso that I had an atheist judge--in effect that I let him win). He whined his way into getting every advantage. He had to go negative and debate his thesis so that meant we would be using his martial that's he's talked about a million times, and his arguments, so I'm clearly at an even greater disadvantage. The topic had to be worded in such a way that he couldn't lose (something about some aspect of religion is irrational--like you can't find that somewhere if you look hard enough). Then he still argued in very stupid ways using a 100 year old article and trying ti disprove Lourdes miracles that had not yet hapepned by that article.





 Maybrick

 In a word, no.

All the apologist has are rhetorical tricks and the near certain knowledge that most of his/her audience are to lazy to check the facts.

They also have an advantage in that they can hide in the maze of philosophy and sound very clever, while actually saying nothing of worth.

 he really does seem to be saying that we are cheating by being intellectual. t's unfair of us to your better educations and be logical in our arguments. Hide in the maze of philosophy is just a frank admission that it's over his head.