Theists, you only have TWO arguments: PICK ONE!

So this is to all of the theists on here (mostly Christians I presume) who think that they have some obligation to spread the gospel and convert atheists. And I think most Christians will agree that it is the duty of a Christian (per the bible instruction) to evangelize and convince others to become Christians.

That being the case, (and so that you don't end up wasting your time and indeed everyone else's) consider for a moment that you only really have two realistic options available to you to accomplish this goal of proselytizing:

Method 1: Argue in favor of "evidence" that supports the existence of God (and or the Supernatural).

...OR...

Method 2: Give a compelling reason for why we should have "faith" in god DESPITE the absence of evidence.

Those are the only two arguments you can make in order to convince anyone who is not already indoctrinated. I know this because as a former Christian, I can argue in favor of BOTH of them. The problem is, you can't use BOTH arguments at the same time! Well you can, but your case becomes much weaker if you do because you've damaged each of the stand alone points. Now, I don't care which method you use because, as a current atheist, I can see how both arguments on their own are flawed and ultimately futile.

However, trying to use BOTH methods simultaneously is called Kettle Logic. Suffice it to say, if you have evidence, then you don't need faith. Faith is the reason people give for believing in something when they don't have evidence. On the other hand, if you can demonstrate that it is reasonable for someone to take something on faith, then you don't need evidence. And arguing in favor of evidence after you've already appealed to faith pretty much invalidates your claim that faith has any value at all. Using both arguments at the same time makes it appear to the atheist that you have so little confidence in one method, and such an inability to make a convincing case using that argument that you have to resort to the desperation of using a completely different tactic when the first one fails. And when you've telegraphed to the atheist that you know your original method has failed, then you've already lost the entire argument before you've begun your second point. From that point on, you're completely wasting your time. It doesn't even matter what you say now you've because you've already shown that you no longer believe that you can support the reasonableness of your original argument.

So why am I telling you guys this? Because I actually enjoy the challenge of the debate (in the hopes that I can actually learn something new, or at the very least embarrass someone arguing an absurdity). But I've seen theists make this mistake in numerous forums recently, and I'm trying to prevent that. When you defeat yourself, you've wasted everyone's time (including mine). That's why I want to help you theists avoid this pitfall. So pick one! Make up your mind BEFORE having the debate on which argument you want to present, and then stick with it. Because once you switch to the other method, you've now flip-flopped and destroyed the point of your first one.