Outsmarted by a Christian, need help to contradict

[athoughtfulman]

Just to check that I understand this correctly, being a newcomer to atheism and philosophy, the OP lost the debate because he made the positive claim that there was no god, but since there is no evidence to prove that, he lost. There is a lack of evidence, which means it is unreasonable to believe in god, with out any claim on whether he exists or not, but the OP didn't take this line of reasoning.

And a philosophical debate starts from ground zero, no one is more right or wrong than the other until the first argument is made.

Correct?