Atheism is the superior position on the existence of a god or gods

Thanks to ThatZachGuy for his reply. I'm also very happy to have another cuber on DDO!Refutations which may not refute anythingMy opponent argues that each argument for God's existence has a refutation...but this does not take into account whether or not the refutation is sound, or even understands the argument at all. Simply because there are objections to the argument, it does not follow that the argument is unsound. Furthermore, common objections usually miss the point completely. Take for example the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas. These arguments are commonly understood to be some sort of Kalam Cosmological argument and refutations commonly heard are "Why can't the big bang be the Unmoved Mover?", however nothing could be further from the truth. Aquinas states, "By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist." (1) These arguments have absolutely nothing to do with the beginning of the universe, and thus the "refutations" presented against them do not refute anything.So while I do not deny that there are countless refutations to arguments for the existence of God, I don't see how this is relevant. There are countless refutations for literally any argument. Simply because there exist refutations to each argument, it doesn't follow that these refutations refute anything! So my opponent presenting the possibility of refutations doesn't justify his premise. He must not only show that there are refutations, but that these are good refutations, which actually refute the arguments.Furthermore, let's imagine we are to assume that these refutations do call the arguments into question. Why don't we also do the same to refutations of these refutations? If we're going to believe there are refutations to arguments for God, why can't we assume there are refutations to these refutations? If my opponent disagrees, he is shifting the goalposts, and aruging from a double-standard.Shifting the burdenAs you will recall, my opponent's argument rests on the fourth premise: "4. God claims lack convincing argument and evidence."This is a positive assertion, and requires an immense burden of proof. I believe I have sufficiently countered his arguments above, however what interests me is that he states: "If my opponent wishes to discredit this conclusion, then he must present an argument or piece of evidence that contradicts it."However, this qualifies as a shifting of the burden fallacy. (2) The burden of proof does not lie on me to prove the falsity of my opponent's premises, but rather the burden lies on my opponent to prove the truth of the premises.This is very similar to what many theists do in the God debate. The person making the claim has the burden to prove this claim. My opponent has made the immense claim that there is(are) no sound argument(s) for God, and there is no evidence for God. This is a huge claim, which believe has not been met.ConclusionIn conclusion, my opponent has not sufficiently defended the 4th premise of his argument. He has defended that it may be possibly true, but possibility simply will not do. Until he proves the truth of the 4th premise, the resolution remains unaffirmed.Thank you! :)Sources(1) http://www.newadvent.org...(2)http://www.nizkor.org...