If you read Christian works you'll see something very interesting that should tell us all they are wrong. Here's what I see. First off, there are more apologists authors than there are skeptics. So they can write five or even twenty essays and books for every one that skeptics write (and produce more YouTube videos too). There are no atheist universities but there are a plethora of Christian colleges and seminaries that support these authors while they do their research. So these apologists and philosophers refer to each other's works. If a skeptic hasn't read a particular philosophical or Biblical work (which are being spit out at an unbelievable rate) the apologist can point to something and say if we read it then our objection would fall to the ground. The assumption behind this seems to be obvious. The assumption is that if we were "better" informed we would believe. Get that? If we were "better" informed then we would believe because our objections would all be answered. If that's not it then what is it? That believing means being informed, that only the informed can be saved. That the uniformed, or the uneducated, the simpleton, and the mentally challenged need to be "better" informed. And to whom should we turn to in order to become "better" informed? The plethora of Christian works being produced? Why? Don't they believe Jesus came to reach the downtrodden, the lower classes of people who were not scholars? Why then would that same God require of us to become better informed in order to believe?Do these apologists have a clue about cultural anthropology and/or psychology when it comes to how real people come to accept religious information and/or authorities? Do they? I think not, not by a long shot. They are clueless, utterly clueless, especially the evangelical types. Do they really want to say that the billions of people who disagree are simply not informed? Is it truly the case that being informed is the key to salvation? Isn't that bordering on Gnosticism, if it isn't already squarely in that camp? That only the enlightened can achieve salvation?Perhaps the assumption is instead that we merely need to be correct about what we think (or believe) and this is all there is to it. Is that what they really think, that believers merely need to be right about their faith? That so long as the uniformed, the uneducated, the simpleton, and the mentally challenged are taught correctly what to believe then that's all that matters?Again, do these apologists have a clue about cultural anthropology and/or psychology when it comes to how real people come to accept religious information and/or authorities? Do they? I think not, not by a long shot. They are clueless, utterly clueless, especially the evangelical types. Most people who cannot think or become better informed will accept anything that a believable person tells them, and as such, these people are truly like sheep without a shepherd who will be led to believe anything. This means that if these people are taught the "correct" beliefs then they are saved by being lucky enough to be taught them. Those who are unlucky and taught the wrong beliefs literally have little or no chance to be correct about their religious beliefs and become saved, because they are uneducated and/or simpletons.So choose ye this day: Either being "better" informed saves people, or being lucky does. In either case this is not what we would expect from a good intelligent God at all, knowing what we do about cultural anthropology and psychology.Your God is dumb. Or, he's throwing the dice with our lives.