Sorry I took so long to reply.
Don't worry about it. People come and go.
An interesting thing is, I'm actually getting pushed in the opposite direction by doing that. Over the last few months I have been watching debates between Christians and atheists, Christians and Muslims, and even between different denominations of Christianity. I finished reading the bible and have now started on the Quran. Whenever I get interested in a subject, I get almost obsessive in my study of it, and right now that topic just happens to be religion.
This is very different from what I am talking about though. You are watching debates, ie. oppositional confrontations. Are you trying to understand the religion from its own perspective? Trying to see what its adherents see, why it is held to so resolutely? You understand something by thinking on it from within its own paradigm, to put on the persona of one of its own, and only then do you understand a debate between those with differing viewpoints which then shed light on each. Often people speak at cross purposes, assume certain axioms implicitly without realising it, and unless both participants share this worldview, this is inescapable.
This is the problem of human tribalism. It is inherent that we assume certain roles and subconsciously these impact what we think. Before understanding a viewpoint you do not hold, you need to deconstruct your own to its base axioms, see how these differ from the others', and then proceed to assume their axioms. Only then, can your conclusions and theirs be juxtaposed and examined, when you are essentially speaking a common language or cognizant of where you clearly are not.
This is the problem with political debates, religious debates, etc. Everyone brings confirmation bias and implicit bias to the table, and we can never completely shake it really. Humans innately classify us and them.
From what you wrote, you already start out with a view that the supernatural does not exist, and clearly have bought the new atheist reclassification of agnosticism into atheism. The latter helps to expand their side, so that it can encompass far more than their actual views would allow, which increases the listeners favour by 'being one of ours' - it is a trick of Sophistry, as old as Roman Emperors calling auxiliaries Quirites or Citizens.
We all have this problem. Now as a Christian, I have the opposite problem that I use to have, in that now I have to try and see Atheist views by their own merits and not just confirm their opponents from my Christian bias, because I happen to implicitly agree with them. You are starting with a disbelief in the supernatural, so no amount of talk of God, the Incarnation, etc. would ever appear credible. A suspension of disbelief is required to understand the viewpoint for its own merits. There are two wonderful little essays by CS Lewis called Meditation in a toolshed and Miracles, both in God in the Dock, that touch on this problem.
Akin to this is condemnation by association. I don't like the excesses of the Soviet Union, so it was all bad, or Colonialism. Things are seldom so black and white. This is often levelled at religion because it has a long pedigree back to the the earliest strata of civilisation, so has archaic detritus in modern eyes. The difference is that secularism is not treated as a block, so Christians are condemned for the Crusades, but Atheists aren't for the Khmer Rouge - it is a double standard one should avoid.
Lastly, we enter the fact that schooling largely focusses on Empiricism. Empiricism cannot prove Religion by its very nature, hence the methodological Naturalism of Science, which people confuse for Metaphysical Naturalism. Empiricism does not come naturally, children need to be taught it in school, and it took centuries of philosophy before the view was even articulated. Check out the Princess Anne experiments to see what I am talking about. However, being taught Empiricism, people try and apply it as if it is the best arbitrar of truth, while it is itself rife with assumptions on the nature of the world. This colours many views on the miraculous and strengthens factors like inattentional blindness when it comes to the religious. We thus have an educational problem as well, which has a underlying belief structure, even if not explicit, which can even be seen in other terms in use: a good example is Progressive vs conservative - Progressing to what? It creates the illusion of progression, of modernity, to one side, thus biasing adherents to already consider it an 'improvement', regardless if any form of evidence backs it up or not. Again Lewis has a good book around this, called the Abolition of Man, how we create Men without Chests.
Think of it this way: Almost everyone who imagines themselves in Nazi Germany believe they wouldn't have become Nazis or hidden Jews, but the reality is most simply didn't. This is why Nazis are treated as an Other, instead that they were completely normal Educated Germans - shopkeepers and doctors etc. We need to understand from their own perspectives, their own culture, to see what was going on. We could all be Nazis given the correct factors and intellectual environment, seeing that Liberal Educated Germany ended up there.
Similarly the transition from Atheist to Theist requires a dramatic shift in the understanding of beliefs, of why people would hold something with such fervour that has no evidence or dubious factors from my perspective; but that they consider sound. Often they look at the same data - many Archaeologists, Biblical scholars, philosophers, scientists, etc. belong to either camp. What clinches it for one, is dismissed as unimportant by the other, or even clinches their antithetical view to them. Perspective is required, bearing in mind that no one is capable of being truly objective and biases abound. As I said, very difficult to evaluate the merit of a view you do not agree with, and there is no guarantee that other biases or principles didn't come into play. Hence, from my perspective a hard fought and long campaign, but one that requires Faith or lack thereof to move in anyway from one side to the other.
Can you tell me some of your personal favorite speakers on youtube or specific videos that I can look up?
Sorry, I don't watch youtube speakers. I am a reader. As you can clearly see, I am quite fond of CS Lewis, though. For Christianity you have 2 millenia of good writers to draw from, and I implore you not to focus on only the modern ones. It is a fallacy to think the more recent something is, the better it must be, but this is a natural problem people fall into. Even atheists, the best bunch are not those alive today, who even as an atheist I had found second tier to writers like Russell or Nietsche.
(On a side note, so far my impression is that part of the Quran was written to directly refute Christianity. The bluntness of it is actually kind of funny. I'm not even half way through and it's constantly saying things like "Allah didn't have a son" or "Allah is only one, not three." It's a little more eloquent than that but not by much. Also a lot of it is just rehashing stories from the Old Testament.)
A lot of the Koran was written for immediate aims of Mohammed. This is why there are pro-Jewish parts from the Medinan period that then sharply turn anti-Jewish when he held Mecca. Or how revelations allowed him more wives than what was the maximum in earlier revelations. Another more controversial example is the Satanic Verses, which may represent a short-lived entente with the Pagans of Mecca, that Muslims have stoutly denied since.
With Christianity, the Koran clearly opposes a lot of it, but when it was compiled, the Ummayid Caliphate was largely in conflict with the Byzantines, so again expected. It also seems to be confused sometimes, as somewhere within the Koran it condemns Christians for worshipping Mary, but Mohammed confused the minor heresy of Collyridianism with Christian doctrine in general here.
