I've written many dozens of articles on Christian theism (links to lists below). One of the cheapest criticisms anyone can make is to say that an article doesn't talk about what the reader would prefer to read. That kind of criticism is irrelevant if the author has talked about it elsewhere, and if that other topic is logically irrelevant to what's being discussed in the article at hand.

Your criticism of new atheism is a red herring. To be sure, I've criticized that movement, too; I objected specifically to the leaders' scientism. But that's irrelevant to the specific point I made here: the atheists cleaned up in their debates with Christian and Islamic apologists. The movement has indeed faded because it was a mass media creation, and the corporate media run on fads and have infantile attention spans. None of that affects the substance of atheism. Criticizing the new atheists personally, as you did, amounts to the genetic fallacy, which is just another dodge of the substance of the arguments.

And none of what you say addresses the actual argument I lay out in this article (i.e. how science undermines the intuitions on which theism rests). No, I didn't say that science alone answers all our philosophical questions. That would be the scientism I've repudiated elsewhere. So you're just dodging the issue with fallacies, and that's why even the new atheists demolished the theists in their debates because theism can be defended only with such sophistry in the twenty-first century.

https://benjamincain8.medium.com/list/christianity-and-islam-dad5c0d7814b

https://benjamincain8.medium.com/list/gods-funeral-3c9e5930a167

https://benjamincain8.medium.com/list/the-absurdity-of-god-397360389565