Why atheism wins the debate by default.

Many theists still debate atheists as if there is something to debate. They make a claim, don't back it up, and wonder why atheists believe what they do. In a debate there is a winner and a loser, and the debate is over whether or not A (God) exists. In order for a theist to win a debate, they must prove that A exists, and THEN prove that A is responsible for B (the universe). Theists believe they can effectively debate atheists by using the "well how did it all get here" argument. This argument fails because it does nothing to prove that God exists, but does prove that humans don't know how energy began (if it even had a beginning). Theists will argue that the burden of proof is on the atheists to disprove their claim. But are atheists actually making a claim outside of being intellectually opposed to the claim of theists? No. Atheists can only prove their position by pointing to the FACT that theists cannot prove their's (atheism does not/cannot go outside of this).

Theist: "God exists!"
Atheist: "Prove it!"
Theist: "Prove God doesn't exist."
Atheist: "What's your favorite flavor of lead paint?"
Thiest: "I win!"

Creationist Dr. William Lane Craig: "Egad! What an Explanation!" (an atheist's response)

And this is how creationists debate atheists. Apparently finding finding arrowheads and believing God created the universe are the same thing. The main difference here is that we have seen people make pottery and arrowheads and we have seen people. In other words, we have seen the process for how arrowheads and pottery are made, and we have seen the maker. Another problem with Dr. William Lane Craig (got his doctorate at clown college) is that he is comparing the shaping of matter into objects with the creation of energy itself. There is no evidence that energy even needs to be created, but there is evidence that arrowheads and pottery need humans to be created (they aren't grown on trees). Dr. William Lane Craig is probably one of the more popular debaters against atheism out there, would think he could come up with better arguments—being that he has a doctorate and all. Here are two main problems with his argument.

-We don't know that energy needs to be created (our best physics shows it to be eternal)
-We don't know that God exists (we know humans exist)

To be able to claim that something caused something, we need to know that that something is, and then we can assess what that thing is responsible for doing. Atheists win any debate against creationism because creationists are unable to backup any of their claims. If we don't know something we don't know, an unknown cannot be used to explain an unknown—doing such a thing gets us nowhere, and is really just playing with words. At the end of the day, God is just an empty word. 

No-one created everything (an atheist's response to GodLowDown)

"The big bang must require an external, transcendent cause"

Why? His argument, in reality, does nothing to prove the existence of anything.

"because logically the cause of the Big Bang must transcend the elements of the known universe, which includes space-time"

Why only the "known universe"? And why do these things need to have been created by intelligent forces? Do we even know that energy can be created? What if energy is eternal? What if over time, energy created its own complexity; because that is essentially what we are talking about here...complexity is what makes a human a human, not the physical matter itself. We don't know the exact process responsible for all of this, and that is exactly where it ends. Darkness is darkness, theists call it "God", atheists call it "unknown". Theists pretend to understand things they can't, and this closes them off to marveling and thinking about the big questions. Atheists are free to think about the big questions openly, theists are free to think "God did it".

Apparently words can do things, underlying the word 'God' is a bunch of smoke and mirrors...nothing about this supposed being is actually known, NOTHING! GodLowDown claims that God doesn't need a cause, blah blah. The universe needs a cause, but God doesn't, right...Again, nothing is known about this God, if such a thing exists, it would have to be very complex, and would have to had come about by SOME process (otherwise God wouldn't exist). God is magical, and magic and ignorance go together so nicely (it gives the human worldview some stability and euphoria). It is much more logically coherent to believe that intelligence came about from the unintelligent evolution of self-replicating patterns (not just biological). Playing the devil's advocate, let's say that God does exist, how does this guy know that God doesn't have a creator? All his video proved is how warped theist logic is. Atheists will always win the debate until the existence of God is proven (which, I believe, won't happen for another eternity or two). Atheists are claiming that God doesn't exists, and theists are unable to prove that God does exist. Atheists win by default, and both sides know it, they just love argue. Theists like GodLowDown need to study up on the concept of faith, and understand that it is not about proving anything.

Atheist: "How did all this complexity come about?"

Theist: "Oh God did it"

Atheist: "How can you possibly know that?"

Theist: "How else can we explain this complexity?"

Atheist: "How can we explain an unknown with another unknown?"

Theist: "With God"

Atheist's inner-monologue: "I'm sure glad my crib wasn't pained with lead paint"

Theist's inner-monologue: "And another atheist defeated, I'm so great"

Impossible to worship God

In this post I'm going to argue that even if atheists are wrong, and God does exist, it is impossible to worship him—and such a thing might as well not even be labeled 'God'. To clarify, there is zero evidence that God exists, only strong evidence to suggest that humans would personify their ignorance—as they do with all things they don't understand—such as when they get angry at inanimate objects like cars and computers (but that's neither here nor there).  

I believe that God is impossible to worship, this is because what God is and where God is located is unknown. Fortunately (for them) theists do not see the problem with this. But think about it, how can a being be a target of worship without at least some information regarding the actual being being available—any sort of description of physiology or at the very least, location. How is it possible to know what it is that you are worshiping if you don't at least have some information about this being? Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. worship the actions of a god and have no information about the actual being. The problem here is that they are getting ahead of themselves: the being must first be known of in order to give it credit for doing something...in other words, how can we know A is responsible for doing B when we can't know if A even exists? Wouldn't it logically make more sense to first prove that A exists? The point here is that God is impossible to worship, what is actually worshiped is an idea. Do theists deny that when they talk about God they are thinking? i.e. that thoughts are occurring? That if they got a nasty enough head-injury they wouldn't even know what the word 'God' means? Anyways, the point here is that theists worship ideas, that it is truly impossible to worship God (regardless if He exists or not).

I'm surprised more atheists don't utilize this type of argument more often. While theistic arguments are/have been demolished, it seems that this, philosophically, gets at the core of the issue.