I think that even if one is firmly convinced on the subject, we should always search for the truth no matter what side you’re on. That means listening to what the other side has to say, especially if you’ve not heard it before.
As an atheist I think Randal is pretty good in terms of apologists specifically because he has such nuanced views on traditional objections that would cause a lot of doubts with Christianity. Similarly, in “God or Godless” he doesn’t go for the “standard” arguments you’re likely to hear if you watch formal debates with the usual apologists. Sure he’s got some version of the cosmological argument in there, but his presentation of it is not what you’d expect. I still think he’s wrong in these cases, but it’s nice to see a few new things thrown out there.
Loftus is similarly in very good form, he hits the major issues that should cause Christians to doubt their faith, which forces Randal to espouse his more nuanced views. In my opinion, if all we atheists could achieve was to move mainstream Christianity in line with Randal’s interpretations of hell, biblical slavery, and commandments of genocide, then the world will be better off for it.
Still, Loftus’s stated goal was to drive a wedge between what Christians believe versus what the bible actually says and he does a great job there. Randal is forced to provide rationalizations to square some basic version of Christianity with the problematic areas of the bible in terms of atrocities and failed prophecies.
Randal patches the theological holes admirably, but Loftus’s goal is to introduce enough doubt to get the believer to take The Outsider Test for Faithwhich I think is a great way to convince believers to become an atheist. LINK.