The shift isn't due to a "failure of christianity to adapt to the needs of a new era"
The shift is due to Christians being silent when the shift towards these "needs of a new era' were becoming prominent. Christians in the west did practically nothing as the society got more degenerate. They should've stopped this development, and now when its developed, the answer isn't to "adapt". Christianity cannot adapt to its anti thesis. this is illogical. Christianity proclaims the behavior of the current generation as degenerate, this is clear in the bible. The answer to this is simply this: Information war.

Information war how?

There is a reason why no prominent philosopher asks stupid questions such as "What caused god"
Because people who do ask those sort of questions are ignorant of theology. The way to combat ignorance is to provide information and explanations. "serious" atheists have no backbone, hence why they have to rely on "mocking" and rhetorical games to get anyone under their position

You could argue the same of Christians. The Bible isn't the only religious yet the prominent Christians cite only the Bible as giving their arguments credence. What makes Odin wrong? What makes the Gita incorrect?

It's a completely circular argument

An "information war" is out of the question. I'm not saying that we should shut down all attempts to change minds but it will never be enough. The only answer is total war. A Holy war. When even the cornerstones of Western civilization applaud thier own downfall the only answer is violence.

I cringed.

Literally no serious philosopher uses the bible to prove god

this is a common atheist talking point

I never said anything about philosophers

prominent christians, whatever

Then provide me a serious counter point that'll make me question my beliefs

Counter point to what?

The common atheist talking point

oh

Well faith being defined as "belief in the absence of evidence" is one

They define the terms we use to describe our philosophy for us, and then disregard our own definition arbitrarily
This is the equivelent of me defining science as "a satanistic ritual worshiping satan" and then rejecting any counter definition

No Christian has ever defined faith inn that way

just as no scientist has ever defined science as something satanist

That's fine I am not they

@Doktor Goon the problem with that argument is more generally that it embodies a modal fallacy, with few exceptions

cool

Another one is the misrepresentation of The kalam cosmological argument

That's fine I'm just seeing what man's take is

I'm a very open minded individual

Where they say the first premise is "everything has a cause" despite the fact that that was never within the argument originally - it was only added by atheists

This is stuff I never even brought up

Yes, you told me to provide a counter point to some common atheist talking points

I said the common atheist talking point

there is no "The" atheist talking point

As in the one I brought up

which one did you bring up?

You tell me

You said this is a common atheist talking point

i already said that no one uses the bible to prove the existence of god

Then what's the existence of God outside the Bible

What makes the other non aberhamics faiths incorrect

Those are two entirely different questions

one is asking for the existence of god besides the bible and the other is asking for the evidence of bible being the correct religion

Then what question should I be asking

Here's evidence for god besides resorting to bible