What Would Debates About Christianity Look Like If We Cut to the Chase?

My call for ending the philosophy of religion mirrors the late great Dr. Hector Avalos's call to end biblical studies as we know them. It was greatly influenced by anthropology professor Dr. David Eller.
But my call was required by understanding Dr. Peter Boghossian. I first heard of him in a video where he argued "faith based belief processes are unreliable". His target is against faith itself, faith without sufficient evidence, blind faith, which is the only kind of faith that exists. If faith involves trust, there is no reason to trust in faith. 
I concluded that it's irrational to reason about religious doctrines that have no objective evidence for them. Is it ever rational to believe a proposition that requires objective evidence but does not have any objective evidence for it? No! Is it ever rational to believe a religion that requires objective evidence but does not have any objective evidence for it? No! Just consider the gospel claim that a virgin gave birth to the son of a god, and you'll easily see this point. I've written about faith on multiple occasions, especially agreeing with what George H. Smith said about it.  
No wonder William Lane Craig doesn't want to debate me on this proposition: "There is sufficient objective evidence for the miracle assertions in the Bible." 
Is this claim too boring, too uninteresting for agnostics and atheists to focus on? Why are they focusing on anything else? Why? Curious truth-seekers want to know.

Thank you for reading and for your support! We think you'll find a perspective here that you don't usually find elsewhere. Never miss out on future posts by becoming a follower. To make a donation of any size please click here. If you buy anything on Amazon [US] through this link it provides a kickback at no cost to you. Thanks again!