Every reason I’ve ever been given to reject the arguments for theism rests on one of two demonstrably false assumptions:
1. That nothing exists other than the physical, or
2. That there is no way of knowing anything except via the senses (including science, of course).
Now, let me expound on that just a bit:
Though I’m sure some will argue, this should be uncontroversial. Those who demand evidence for theism are, so far as I’ve experienced, never open to non-sensory evidence. And those who attack the Bible as being bad science generally aren’t willing to acknowledge that it wasn’t written as science in the first place.
But, rather than defend the idea that this is the basis of the modern atheist view (which seems rather obvious), I want to point out that it is these ideas, not theism, which are self-contradictory and unsupported.
The first view is properly called “metaphysical naturalism”, “physicalism”, or (more casually) “materialism”. To believe this, one has to believe that nihilism is true, that thoughts are never about anything, that there is no reason at all why science works, that you can’t trust your own logic, and that you (in terms of your own inner life and personality) don’t actually exist.
So I’ve argued in the linked posts (and I’m sure I will again).
Still, there is the second assumption (properly “epistemilogical naturalism” but often called “scientism”). This is the view that, while there might be more than the physical, we should only believe what we can test for scientifically.
The first thing we should note here is that many of the same problems arise. This idea would force us to reject the idea that we have minds, that our morals are rational, and that our thoughts are either about anything or base their choices in logic. It is also deeply problematic that the basis of science itself is rejected by this view. “Science alone”, if one follows the logic, means “not even science”.
The second thing is that this view also contradicts itself. After all, there is no sensory evidence for it. So, by its own standard, it should be rejected.
The only way that modern atheism can hope to escape the absurd conclusions mentioned here is if it could offer an attack on the arguments for theism that doesn’t rest on one of those two assumptions.
After years of encounters, I’ve come across no such thing. This leaves the arguments for theism on the table, with the attempted refutations having been shown to be circular reasoning.