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

In response to refutations: My opponent argues that the existence of refutations does not, in itself, refute the arguments for a god's existence. I agree. However, the mere existence of refutations is not what I intend to present as evidence for my claims. I hold that, while not every refutation is sound, theistic arguments are ultimately grounded in baseless assumptions, logical fallacies, and false premises. One can certainly discover that this applies to every theistic argument through study. In all my time studying apologetic arguments, I have not yet found a sound one. Neither has Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Nye, Richard Carrier, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, or any of the other countless advocates of rationalism and freethought. If there were sufficient argument and evidence for the existence of a god, then any of these scientifically minded atheists would become theists (as would most atheists in the world). On the other hand, we have theists who will either give blatantly fallacious arguments or be honest enough to tell you that their claims must be believed on faith. I'd be willing to bet that my opponent has also been unable to find a sound theistic argument, nor has any reader of this debate. Otherwise, we might have seen a better example than the Five Ways of Aquinas (all of which can be found guilty of assuming faulty premises or committing logical fallacies such as Begging the Question or Special Pleading). I recognize that I cannot claim this with utter certainty, but it stands as a provisional conclusion that can be held because of the complete lack of sound theistic arguments that have come to my attention or the attention of anybody else I have personally spoken with, listened to, or read from. I urge every reader, as well as my opponent, to take every single theistic argument any of you have ever been confronted with and use your knowledge of logic and rational discourse to find the hole that I assure you lurks within. You do NOT have to take my word for it. I'd also like to respond to my opponent's point about refuting refutations. While I'll certainly concede that there are countless unsound refutational arguments against theistic arguments, the most prominent refutations are ones that simply point out logical fallacies and false premises. I welcome any attempt to counter such simple refutations as these. However, I don't find it likely that you can refute the pointing out of a logical fallacy. I urge everybody to try and let me know what you find. However, I do not think that I am moving goalposts or arguing from a double-standard when I say that special pleading is special pleading, and it renders any argument that commits it invalid. In response to shifting the burden: Yes, my fourth premise is a positive assertion. I am willing to accept the BoP that comes with it. However, we cannot know very many things with absolute certainty. Therefore, I've dedicated a significant portion of my time to studying the arguments and "evidence" for the existence of a god and have come to the well-supported, provisional conclusion that no arguments or evidence are sufficient. I offer as evidence for this claim an illustration of two columns: one marked "Sound theistic arguments," and the other marked "Unsound theistic arguments." Under the former, nothing has been so far presented. Under the latter lies the Cosmological Argument (containing false premises and an equivocation fallacy among other problems), the Five Ways (a goldmine of special pleading, begging the question, and other issues), the Argument from Miracles (otherwise known as the argument from ignorance), and every other theistic argument that any of us are familiar with. I cannot take the time to refute every single theistic argument in this forum (that would just be unreasonable), but I urge every reader to find the knowledge out there and apply your own cognitive ability if you wish to cast any reasonable doubt on this conclusion that has been reached by myself, nearly every prominent academic atheist, and even a significant portion of theists who will fully admit that theistic claims are believed on faith alone. All in all, I'd be amiss if I didn't point out that it is somewhat difficult to accept the Burden of Proof on the claim that another position has failed to meet ITS Burden of Proof. I have endeavored to show the source of this tentative conclusion, which is admittedly rather difficult. The bottom line is that I have evidence in the form of refuted arguments and a lack of unrefuted ones. If my opponent or any of you readers are aware of a perfectly sound argument that may act as evidence to a contrary conclusion than what has been already been reached, then it should probably be presented. My opponent has attempted to interpret this as a shifting of the BoP, but I have offered at least some evidence to back up my fourth premise. You can challenge it all you want, and I will admit that it has been reached inductively. However, if one wishes to contradict my conclusion and say that God claims should be accepted, then one should be prepared to fulfill the BoP that the theist holds in claiming the existence of a god. If this Burden has not been fulfilled, then am I unjustified in claiming that the theist lacks sound argument and evidence? Is it shifting the Burden if I am challenged to defend my position that the theist has not met their BoP and I ask them to try again? You're free to interpret it as such, but the bottom line is that the theist has STILL not demonstrated the existence of a god, and the resolution stands. Finally, I'd like to thank my opponent for a challenging first debate and a warm welcome to DDO! This really kept me on my toes, and I enjoyed the stimulation. A heartfelt congratulations to my opponent on a fight well fought, and I wish him luck in the voting to come. This has been a great learning experience!