Jeffrey W. Haws writes about his experience when a friend gave him a copy of Lee Strobel's book A Case for Christ:
The more I read the book, went over Stroebel’s interviews and the explanations provided for everything from “Why does God allow suffering?” to “Why doesn’t God give people a second chance?,” the more disillusioned I became. The more I read the products of Stroebel’s so-called “extensive” research on Christianity, the less palatable I found religion to be. I found nearly every answer given to be unsatisfying at best and amoral at worst. The explanations given through his many interviews were confounding, contradictory and hypocritical. The more I read it, the more I became convinced Stroebel was either simply fishing for reasons to convince himself to believe (”I want to believe in God; now, let’s see if I can talk to enough people who will give me reasons to do so”) or was utterly dense.
The answers indiscriminately combined New-Earth to Old-Earth philosophies, absolved God of all responsibility while saying he sends people to eternal damnation, gave Christianity credit for every bit of good any Christian has done while saying Christians who committed evil acts weren’t “True Christians,” said Atheism devalues life on Earth while saying the only objective of God is to get as many people as possible to heaven.
No one did more to solidify my lack of faith in God than did Stroebel. He showed me that, even with extensive research, interviews, etc., it isn’t remotely possible to reconcile all the seeming contradictions within the Christian faith. Those contradictions are real. For a long time, I thought I was missing something. All these people around me had faith, and I just couldn’t seem to get to that point. I saw all these problems, and I thought, “What is it that I’m not getting?” A Case for Christ showed me I got it all along.
There are better and worse apologists for Christianity, but in different ways they all arguably make a better case for atheism than they do for Christianity. When it comes to the inferior apologists, one can argue as above that when a person does loads of research only to come up with fallacious and false arguments, it's hard not to conclude that they are defending a lost cause.
When it comes to superior apologists, we consistently end up with erudite arguments that the average believer would have trouble understanding, much less using as part of their daily, lived religious life — and even then, the arguments frequently point at best to a distant, transcendent deity which has little in common with the Christian god which most Christians actively believe in and want to think is reasonable to believe in. If we take those arguments seriously, we end up with an irrelevant god of Deism than the active, involved god of orthodox and traditional Christianity.