A Curious Blindspot in the Anglo-American Tradition of Antitheistic Argument

Theistic philosophers often tend to assume an inferiority complex attitude of defensiveness in the face of antitheistic argument. They know that their own traditions of argumentation can easily fall into a repetitive rut by failing to incorporate the new insights or adjust to the new challenges of ongoing contemporary philosophy. But they tend to take it for granted that antitheistic argumentation will almost by definition be up-to-date, alert, freshly minted, using the best tools of the latest thought. I would like to submit that antitheistic traditions too can fall into a traditional rut of out-of-date, already discredited, or no longer relevant arguments. They too can become turned in on themselves and self-repetitive, tilting at long dead, if ever existent, adversaries.